beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is that part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The following "C" in the first sentence of Paragraph 1 includes "C" (hereinafter referred to as "C"), and the above C, the plaintiff, and E (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") shall be delegated to the defendant, as the project implementer, a legal act, such as an administrative act of permission for changing the form and quality of approximately 3,480 forest land (permission for development) in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, which is one's own land.
It is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of "in addition, it refers to the addition in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant delegation contract was concluded by the Defendant to obtain permission to change the form and quality of the instant land, and the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 500 million to Nonparty G, one’s own land, to the Plaintiff.
However, the Defendant did not obtain permission to change the form and quality of the instant land, and G did not lend KRW 500 million to Nonparty F. In particular, on July 26, 2007, C filed a claim for reimbursement against Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2007Gahap2042, which was the period for the existence of the instant delegation contract, but the Defendant violated the obligation as a mandatory by acting F in the said lawsuit, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a penalty of KRW 100 million, which is part of the penalty of KRW 1 billion as stipulated in the instant delegation contract, and any delay damages therefor.
B. We examine whether the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, violated the obligation as the mandatory under the instant delegation agreement.
1. First, we examine whether the Defendant violated the instant delegation contract by failing to obtain permission to change the form and quality of land in the instant land.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 5, the head of Sung-nam Si/Gun/Gu amended on Nov. 21, 2006.