beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of “1. Basic Facts” is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the three parts as follows; and (b) this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
under paragraph 3, using “I” as “N”;
(b) add the following to the fourth Schedule:
“A creditor D shall apply for a voluntary auction on the instant land to Daegu District CourtO, and received a decision to commence a voluntary auction on May 2, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 21, 2017.”
(c)under paragraph 4, the “Evidence A1 to 8” shall be applied with “Evidence A1 to 8, 23”.
2. The parties' assertion
A. In order to newly construct the instant factory, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the instant land from the Defendant and cancel the limited real right on the said land to acquire ownership by transferring the ownership.
However, the Plaintiff cancels the instant sales contract for the following reasons.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 70,000,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff as a result of the cancellation of the above sales contract, and the estimated amount of damages for nonperformance of the Defendant’s obligation, plus KRW 140,00,000,000, and damages for delay.
① After the instant sales contract, multiple provisional seizure, establishment of collateral security, public auction notification, and decision on commencement of voluntary auction as to the entire land of this case were completed. Since the Defendant’s debt amount in the above auction procedure exceeds KRW 3.2 billion, it is impossible for the Defendant to resolve provisional seizure, collateral security, etc., the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership of the land of this case was omitted.
Accordingly, the plaintiff was dated January 12, 2015 and March 13, 2015.