logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.28 2019가단16862
손해배상금 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff cultivated the land of this case from the Defendant as dry field with respect to the area of 4,807 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) located in Gangseo-gun, Suwon-gun, the Defendant, the Defendant owned, by deceiving the Defendant that it would be possible to 2,00 square meters a year, and sold it. The Plaintiff solicited the purchase of the instant land by communicating the Plaintiff’s friendship D with the Plaintiff’s friendship D, and thereafter, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on the instant land between D and E and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of the ownership transfer on June 10, 2005.

However, as a result of verification of the current status of the instant land for the re-sale of the instant land around September 2013 upon D’s request, unlike the Defendant’s explanation, the instant land was forest and field that could not be used as dry field. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for the Plaintiff, who was delegated with the right to cultivate and the right to sell the instant land from D, the actual owner of the instant land, to the cost of improving the instant land into dry field, the cost of KRW 17 million for the improvement of the dry field, the damages for which the crops were not harvested for ten years (=10 million won x 10 years), and the damages for which the instant land was not harvested for ten years.

2. The plaintiff's assertion itself is based on the judgment, even if the owner of the land of this case was delegated with the right to cultivate or sell the land from E or D, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, not the party to the contract, sustained any loss due to the sales contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is without merit without examining it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow