beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant A is the owner of 12 lots of land, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”). On the other hand, on November 8, 2013, D and E obtained approval for factory establishment under the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”) with respect to the factory establishment for “Negligence, hydrogen processing and storage business” on each of the respective lands of the instant land on the following grounds.
B. On April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, under the brokerage of Defendant B, etc., purchased the instant land from Defendant A for KRW 1,300,000,000, and agreed to succeed to each of the above factories construction that the Plaintiff received from D and E, and paid KRW 20,000,000 following the contract amount to Defendant A.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although it is impossible for the Defendants to change the name of the owner of the approval of factory construction on the instant land, the Plaintiff could change the name of the owner of the approval of factory construction and prepare the remainder after receiving the loan thereafter, and the Defendants are liable to jointly pay the Plaintiff the down payment amount of KRW 20 million and the damages for delay due to tort damages. (2) The Defendants are liable to jointly pay the Plaintiff the compensation for damages caused by tort. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract by deceiving the Defendant A that the approval of factory construction may be possible as above. This is a legal act conducted by expression of intent or mistake by fraud, and thus, the Defendant A is liable to return the down payment of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.
B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, in full view of the results of the fact-finding on the health department and the chemical market (in response to June 21, 2016) as to whether it is impossible to change the name of the existing factory construction on the instant land as alleged by the Plaintiff, the approval of factory construction under the Industrial Cluster Development Act is an object.