beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is cited or the plaintiff's new argument in the trial is added to the following judgment.
Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
(a) On the second page of the parts to be dried, the following 7 lines “S” shall be deemed “G”, and “T” shall be deemed “H”, respectively.
Al 5, Al 7 to 10, and 13 of Al 7 to Al 10, 13, 19, and 24 of Al 7 to Al 10, 100.
In the 5th page 11 and 12 parts of the “the above matters” portion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are the case related to the Changro, “Article 1(a) of the Special Terms and Conditions in the instant sales contract cannot be deemed a clerical error on January 9, 2015. However, in full view of the various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the instant case) had an agreement between the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the instant case) to recognize the right of free passage to the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the instant case) on the land, etc., but even if there was such agreement at the time of the instant sales contract, it is difficult to view that the “the agreement at the time of the instant sales contract to grant the consent of land use” was the condition or premise for the payment of the re-sales contract and the construction cost, or the content of the construction cost.”
B. In addition, the Plaintiff did not originally sell F land at the time of the instant sales contract, but included F land in the subject of sale as necessary for the Defendant’s authorization and permission related to housing construction, but agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff again after the Defendant completed the construction of the building. Accordingly, the Defendant created F land as a site in accordance with the original construction report design drawings and changed its use.