beta
Text
All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that "196" in the 8th parallel of 8th parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance is "196" and "A evidence No. 8" in the 8th parallel of 8th parallel of 8th parallel of 8th parallel of "B" is added "the video of 7 Eul", and the part "5th parallel of 12th one "the expiration of extinctive prescription" is the same as the written in the judgment of the court of first instance as it is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the written in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case where 9th parallel of 9th one is used as mentioned below 2. The plaintiffs can file a claim for transfer of ownership based on the ownership of each of the land of this case for the restoration of real name, and the defendant's obligation to transfer of ownership cannot be claimed.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da28604 Decided May 17, 2012). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ claim is a monetary payment claim on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership of each of the instant lands was impossible, and in principle, the extinctive prescription of five years shall apply from the time when it became impossible (Article 96(2) and (1) of the National Finance Act). The Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership is impossible to perform as a result of the subdivision and rearrangement project of each of the instant lands, etc. on March 4, 2008, and the extinctive prescription has run from that time, and the extinctive prescription has run from that time to December 6, 2013, and the Plaintiffs had already completed the extinctive prescription prior to the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages through the purport of the claim
As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is contrary to the principle of good faith.