beta
Text
1. The defendant, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet,
A. 33,057/196,463 Shares to Plaintiff A:
B. Plaintiffs B, and .
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim
A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 200 million for 33,057/196,463 out of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on January 16, 2009, and as a special agreement, paid the principal amount of KRW 200 million by June 30, 2010 and the profit of KRW 100 million without taxes and public charges.
(300 million won) The above amount shall be paid as forest land (land) when it is impossible to pay by June 30, 2010.
The fact that the Plaintiff B, C, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 150 million for shares (per 12,396.5/196, 463 shares) in the instant land on January 16, 2009, which is KRW 24,793/19643 (per 12,396.5/196, 463 shares) from among the instant land, appears to be 150,000 won as the special terms and conditions, “150,000 won with the principal until June 30, 2010. The Plaintiff B and C shall pay KRW 75,00,000 won without taxes and public charges (per 22,500,000 won with the daily payment) to the Plaintiffs as forest land (per 20,000,000 won) and no dispute exists between the Plaintiffs by June 30, 2010.
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on January 16, 2009 with respect to the share of 33,057/196,463 among the land in this case to the plaintiff A, the plaintiff B and C, respectively, for the share of 12,396.5/196,463 shares.
B. As to this, the defendant's contract entered into with the plaintiffs is an investment contract with the purport that the defendant shall generate profits from the mining business conducted in the land of this case and pay such profits to the plaintiffs. The above special agreement is to transfer the ownership of the agreed share of the land of this case in proportion to the investment amount, only when the defendant was unable to obtain permission for the mining business, and the business was not carried out.