beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the plaintiff's assertion made in this court as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
The plaintiff's assertion of additional determination is that the plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the plaintiff's name in order to prepare for the remaining KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000 for each subparagraph of C and D, and the plaintiff did not have any reason to agree with the defendant since the plaintiff did not have any authority to dispose of the subparagraph C and D, and the plaintiff did not have any reason to reach an agreement with the defendant even after the plaintiff bears the obligation to pay the advance payment, the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership of subparagraph C and D, and each of the above obligation to deliver the real estate simultaneously, because the plaintiff did not have any other monetary relationship with the defendant.
Even if the ownership of subparagraph C was transferred to another person, it is not impossible to transfer ownership and to perform the obligation of delivery as the sale of another person's rights is valid.
Judgment
The first argument is based on the following circumstances, namely, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, which are acknowledged as follows: ① the Defendant filed a complaint with respect to the Plaintiff as embezzlement in relation to the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff is recognized to have invested KRW 40 million in the investigation process; ② Even if the Plaintiff agreed to invest KRW 80 million as alleged, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was reached and the Plaintiff terminated the existing investment contract, and the Plaintiff is only 67 million.