1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the head of the corporation are companies with the objective of the paper manufacturing business, etc.

On October 7, 2008, the head of Sicheon-gu Corporation purchased a factory site of this case from the defendant in Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seocheon-gu, the defendant, as factory site, 346-1 (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 16, 2008.

On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff merged the head of the corporation.

On October 2015, the Plaintiff excavated the instant land for the construction of factory expansion and discovered wastes therefrom.

From November 2, 2015 to November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff disposed of KRW 153t Wastes, which brought KRW 11,781,00, and KRW 26,180,000, from June 4, 2016 to June 14, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap 1-9, 12, 13, 15-18, 20-2, 21-2, Eul 1, and 20-2, 21-2, and video, part of Gap 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the waste disposal cost incurred by the Plaintiff in accordance with the cost payment agreement concluded on November 2, 2015.

B. A large amount of waste in the instant land subject to sale is buried and thus, in a sales contract, the seller is obligated to transfer the defective article to the buyer. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 37,961,00 (=26,180,000) for waste disposal costs due to defect liability and incomplete performance as well as for damage compensation liability due to incomplete performance (=3,994,000, total amount of KRW 41,95,000, total amount of KRW 41,95,000, and the amount of soil generated due to land excavation.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant agreed on November 2, 2015 to pay the Plaintiff the waste disposal cost incurred by the Plaintiff on the basis of the cost payment agreement.

According to the Gap evidence No. 11, on November 2, 2015, during the telephone conversation between the plaintiff A and the defendant B on November 2, 2015, A is less than the forum.