Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Won-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Counterclaim Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Suwon, Attorneys Kang Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 23, 2009

Incheon District Court Decision 2007Kadan48570 decided September 11, 2008 (Counterclaim)

1. All appeals filed by the counterclaim Defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the counterclaim Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On March 23, 2005, the counterclaim Defendant 1, on the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet, the counterclaim Defendant 2, on the real estate Nos. 3 and 4 in the separate sheet, shall implement the procedure for application for land transaction permission according to the sale and purchase contract as of March 23, 2005.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All the claims of the Counterclaim are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows: "Nos. 2, 3, and 10, and No. 11 (including paper numbers)" are added to the evidence entry of "1. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ...... ........ ..... .......... ............ are added to the end of

2. Additional determination

(3) The phrase “the act of entering into a land transaction contract without obtaining permission” subject to punishment under Article 141 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 7459, Mar. 31, 2005) refers to the act of entering into a contract under the premise that the land transaction contract would be subject to permission, and it does not constitute an act of entering into a land transaction contract under the premise that the said land transaction contract would be subject to permission (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1878, Oct. 7, 1994; 94Do2091, Apr. 7, 195). It is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for land transaction permission under the premise that the Plaintiff would have failed to obtain the land transaction permission under the premise that the Plaintiff would have obtained the land transaction permission under the premise that the Plaintiff would have failed to obtain the land transaction permission under the premise that the land transaction permission was made by Nonparty 1, 1, and 2,3 and 4 (including serial numbers).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals by the counter defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judges Showon (Presiding Judge)