beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 51,745,280 as well as 5% per annum from May 2, 2016 to September 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff purchased, on June 19, 201, 659,731,520 square meters from the Defendant for the construction of a motor vehicle-related facility; on April 8, 2015, 932,570,000 square meters for C large scale 278 square meters; and on September 21, 2015, 310,370,000 square meters for D large scale 10 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) On December 2015, the Plaintiff discovered that a large quantity of waste, such as waste concrete, has been buried in the said land during the process of the construction of a new building on the land in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu and a building on a 117 square meters and a F large scale of 56 square meters, which was previously owned by the Plaintiff. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to dispose of it, but the Defendant failed to perform this, and disposed of KRW 82,00,000,000, in total, as waste disposal expenses incurred by the said land buried from April 27, 2016 to May 2, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. (1) In the event that the object of the sale lacks objective nature and performance that is expected in light of the transaction norms, or lacks the nature that the party intended or guaranteed, the seller bears the warranty liability for the buyer due to the defect.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the goods subject to sale and purchase should have determined that the goods subject to sale and purchase are subject to sale and purchase based on their quality and condition. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the goods subject to sale and purchase, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the goods subject to sale and purchase are subject to sale and purchase, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) above.