(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.11.27 2012가단28455

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.11.27 2012가단28455

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the entire shot trees and the 10 weeks Oral Hasong (hereinafter “the instant trees”) that were planted in the D Forest in Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”) in the instant forest by introducing C (the co-defendant was the instant co-defendant, and the conciliation was concluded with the Plaintiff on September 27, 2013).

B. The sales price of the instant sales contract was KRW 17,50,000, and the Plaintiff intended to extract the instant trees until December 31, 2011. After the instant sales contract was concluded, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the period up to March 31, 2012, and the Plaintiff decided to waive all rights where the instant trees were not extracted until the said period.

C. On June 3, 2011, the Plaintiff remitted the purchase price of KRW 17,500,000 to the Defendant under the instant sales contract.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As to the assertion that the instant sales contract is null and void in violation of the established rules of the Korea Forest Service, Article 4 of the Guidelines for the Preservation and Utilization of Trees under Article 607 of the Rules of the Korea Forest Service alleged by the Plaintiff stipulates that the extraction of trees shall not be entirely extracted from the entire forest land to the extent that it does not impair the preservation and arbitrament of forest land, or the landscape thereof.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case with the purport of extracting all the trees of this case planted in the forest of this case at once is null and void as it violates the above provisions.

According to the fact-finding reply to the head of Gun, the court held that the extraction of the trees of this case is limited, as alleged by the plaintiff.

However, the sales contract of this case is null and void only with such restrictions.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2016.08.11 2014가단16098

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.04.22 2019가단77801

-청주지방법원 2015.01.30 2013나6231

-전주지방법원 2014.04.23 2013가단27406

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.02.13 2014가단4530