beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owned 2/3 shares and 1/3 shares with respect to C Forest land 41,877 square meters (hereinafter “forest land before subdivision”). Before subdivision, forest land was divided into C forest land 37,910 square meters (hereinafter “C forest”) and E forest land 3,967 square meters (hereinafter “E forest”) on February 16, 2015.
B. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and D entered into a sales contract with F to sell 33,058/37,901 shares of C forest land in the purchase price of KRW 570,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). According to a special agreement, the seller’s permission for tourist farm is to acquire the said land by November 30, 2015, and if no permission is granted, the sales contract becomes void and the seller agrees to return the money that the buyer received from the buyer.
C. On August 31, 2015, F made a provisional registration with respect to C forest land on the grounds of the instant sales contract. D.
After that, G entrusted by the defendant was engaged in the business of permission for tourist farm permission, etc. for C forest land, but did not obtain permission from the competent authority.
E. Accordingly, on May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million as the principal deposit on the ground that the instant sales contract was rescinded, and paid KRW 5 million to F on August 16, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 11, and 13 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) secured access roads to forest land before the division that was a franchisor to the Plaintiff; (b) obtained permission for tourist farm to sell and sell the instant real estate to a third party; and (c) paid the price in the event that the sale and purchase is sexually different; (d) as a premise for obtaining permission for tourist farm business, in order to secure entry roads, the Defendant exchanged the Plaintiff’s 849 square meters and E forest land totaling of H-si I and two parcels.