1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2012, the Plaintiff consented C, the owner of 542 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongnam-gun, to use the portion of “B” part of 69 square meters in the instant land, which was successively connected with each of the points of 1,8,9,10, 10, and 1 attached drawings, among the instant land, to the owner of 4,627 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

B. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court No. 39 on January 2, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, the special terms and conditions of the instant sales contract include the following: “The Defendant understood and recognized the part of the instant land at least 21 square meters on the left-hand side of the instant land as a road leading to the Plaintiff’s ditch and leading to the instant adjacent land.” In the description of confirmation subject to the instant sales contract prepared by F, the term “matters of the right to the goods that are not de facto relation of rights or publicly notified” refers to the phrase “the consent to use the land as a passage to the instant adjacent land at approximately 21 square meters on the left-hand side of the instant land”.

C In order to establish a building on the adjoining land of this case, upon filing an application for a building permit, and requesting the Defendant to consent to the land use of the road of this case, the Defendant refused to approve the land use on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to explain the subject or purpose of the consent to use at the time of the sales contract. Accordingly, C’s application for the building permit was rejected.

C The Plaintiff was unable to construct the instant land by selling the instant land even if the Plaintiff paid a certain amount of price and obtained the consent to use the land.