logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원순천지원 2017.06.13 2016가단9371
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with the Defendant to exchange KRW 1643 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and KRW 3 million, and KRW 2572,00,000,000,000,000 and KRW 2572,000,000,000,00,00 for the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant two land”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant on the day of the contract.

B. After concluding the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff continuously occupied and used the instant land 2, and the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant land 1.

C. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the Plaintiff’s name on January 26, 2007, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant on February 16, 2007 from the Defendant’s name on February 16, 2007, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of Nonparty E (F after changing the sex) on December 4, 2009, respectively in the name of Nonparty E (F) and H and I on September 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received necessary documents from the Plaintiff for the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case, the Defendant arbitrarily completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case.

In addition, the defendant, according to the exchange contract of this case, failed to perform his duty to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case 2, but failed to perform it, was recruited with J, or completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future on February 16, 2007 by the defendant's gross negligence.

Therefore, the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff was impossible, which was caused by the reason attributable to the defendant, so the exchange contract of this case was cancelled by service of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim modification, and restored to its original state.