2013Da46832 Sales Price

1. Real estate management (former trade name: Korea Development Finance Corporation);

2. Blob Savings Bank;

3. Interesting mutual savings banks;

4. New Civil Mutual Savings Banks;

5. Hyundai Savings Bank (former trade name: Cinematographic Savings of a stock company).

bank)

6. A stock company of Mz comprehensive financial securities.

7. Native mutual savings banks;

8. The Korea Asset Savings Bank;

9. A stock company savings bank;

10. Korea Stock Exchange;

Korea Asset Management Corporation

United States Savings Bank, one of the stock companies, the successor to the Savings Bank, and Appellee

Korea Asset Management Corporation

Part-time Intervenor and Appellee of the Korea Savings Bank

KB Savings Bank, Inc.

Gyeong-gu Savings Bank trustee, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation and Appellee

1. Large and joint stock company's share;

2. A company with large sex industry;

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na4963 Decided May 31, 2013

January 29, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on the interpretation of a juristic act

The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiffs entered into a new project agreement for the promotion of the instant housing construction project (hereinafter “instant project site”) with Defendant Daesung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daesung”) and the first dong-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daesung”); and (b) the instant construction project agreement for the implementation of the instant housing construction project at the time of completion of the instant construction project agreement; (c) it is difficult to view that part of the terms and conditions of the instant project site were not available for the first time during the process of the instant construction project agreement to be entered into with the Plaintiff for the first time during the instant construction project plan; and (d) the content of the instant project agreement to be entered into in the instant construction project agreement to be entered into with the Plaintiff for the first time during the period of the instant construction project agreement to be entered into with the Plaintiff for the first time during which the instant construction project site was to be entered into; and (e) the instant construction project agreement to be entered into within the terms and conditions of the instant construction project agreement to be entered into.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on juristic act or interpretation of contract.

2. As to the ground of appeal on confirmation of non-performance of the condition

The lower court determined that the designation and public notice of the Class 1 general residential area of the instant project site by the Gyeonggi-do Governor was attached to the condition that the instant project site is “as soon as the conditions are met through deliberation at the time of establishing the “multi-family housing construction plan,” and the meaning of the instant project site is to be increased by the specific use area if the conditions are met after deliberation in the future. In fact, the instant project site was designated and public notice as Class 2 general residential area, excluding a part of the said conditions, and the instant project site was designated and publicly notice was also designated and given as Class 1 general residential area in the vicinity of the instant project site as well as the designation and public notice of Class 2 general residential area after the conditional designation and public notice was designated and public notice as Class 1 special residential area, so it is difficult to view that the non-performance of the conditions under Article 8.1 of the instant project site becomes final only by the conditional designation and public notice of Class 1 general residential area. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles

3. As to the grounds of appeal on omitting judgment

According to the records, since the defendants did not assert the limitation of liability under the good faith principle in the court below, the judgment below did not err in omitting judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Kwon Soon-il