beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 18, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with C and C for the purchase of pine trees (hereinafter “instant pine trees”) from C and C to the 39 large 39 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant pine trees with the purchase price of KRW 63 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid to the Defendant KRW 42 million in total, including KRW 8 million on the same day, KRW 5 million on April 20, 2017, KRW 7 million on May 10, 2017, and KRW 2 million on May 24, 2017.
C. Meanwhile, D sold the instant pine trees to F on May 10, 2017.
Since then, F claimed the ownership of the instant pine tree, on May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 22 million out of the KRW 42 million paid from the Defendant as the purchase price, entered into a contract to purchase the instant pine tree from F, and then cut out the instant pine tree.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, 7 evidence (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 22 million out of the purchase price from the Defendant on the ground that the instant pine trees were not owned by the Defendant. Accordingly, the instant sales contract was rescinded at that time, and thus, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the remaining purchase price of KRW 20 million against the Defendant. (2) The instant pine trees were planted by C based on the right to loan the use of the instant land, and the said owner is C.
After purchasing the instant pine trees from C, the Defendant sold it to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff ging the instant pine trees.
Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the purchase price, and the Plaintiff must pay the Defendant the unpaid purchase price of KRW 43 million.
(b) judgment;