beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, thereby citing this case’s assertion in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination of 2.
A. The key issue of the instant case (1) The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) only and one-manton with the Plaintiff, which is the fact that the Plaintiff would construct the instant building under the Defendant’s former responsibility and deliver it to the Plaintiff along with the site.
In addition, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract in order to cooperate in the procedures. However, the Defendant did not know the contents of the sales contract and the special terms and conditions. As such, the Defendant is liable for nonperformance or warranty liability to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 135 million in the purchase price of the instant building 30 square meters; ② KRW 17,50 million in the purchase price of the instant building; ② KRW 63,514,500 in the construction price of the building additionally paid; ④ KRW 1,816,630 in the cost of land category change; ④ KRW 1,816,630 in the cost of land category change; ⑤ KRW 15,074,70 in the infrastructure cost; ⑤ KRW 13,66,199 in the bank loan interest; ② KRW 30,000 in the road opening facilities, KRW 150,000 in the total damages amount [see attached Form 23].
Judgment
As long as a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56616, Nov. 11, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, Feb. 15, 2017).