logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.04.19 2014가단35726
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 34,362,00 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from February 23, 2017 to April 19, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B, Plaintiff A, and Nonparty E shared 5,157 square meters of F Forest in Chuncheon (hereinafter “instant forest”) and 1,567 square meters of G in Chuncheon-si, G, and 3,744 square meters prior to H, and 1,838 square meters prior to I. (hereinafter “instant land”) with 1/3 equity shares.

B. On May 4, 2006, the Defendant (J at the time) filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff B, A, and E on the ground that he purchased KRW 124,200,000 for the purpose of using the instant forest as the business site for the golf course. On December 3, 2007, in addition to the establishment of the sales contract for the instant forest, the execution of the procedures for the payment of the purchase price and the transfer of ownership, a voluntary adjustment including the following provisions was established.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation clause” or “instant conciliation”) 5. The Plaintiff opened access roads to the extent that access to agricultural machinery, such as black land, etc. adjacent to Defendant B, A, and E, to the extent that it does not interfere with the farming of the instant land owned by Defendant B, A, and E, which is adjacent to Defendant B, A, and E.

C. From around 2009, the Defendant has operated the public golf course (hereinafter “the instant golf course”) with the trade name “L” in the instant forest and Chuncheon-si K, etc. (hereinafter “L”).

Meanwhile, on October 12, 2009, Plaintiff C completed a share transfer registration with respect to one-third of E out of the instant land due to inheritance by agreement division.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since the Defendant did not perform the duty to open access roads to the instant land under the instant adjustment clause, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages equivalent to the market price difference when each access road has been established to the Plaintiffs.

(b) A land-use disability due to golf falling.

arrow