beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and evidence Nos. 8-1, 8-2, 1, and 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
E, F, G, H, I, K, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, and the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “E, etc.”) commenced a business jointly developing and selling the said land as a house site for electric source (hereinafter referred to as “U building 1, 2, and 3 complex”) around 2007.
B. From March 2007, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, and AD (hereinafter collectively referred to as “nine persons, including these”) entered into each sales contract with E with regard to each subparagraph of U-building three complexes, around March 2, 2007. From March 2, 2007 to June 2, 2007, each of them completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the land in this case.
C. The 1, 2, and 3 complexes of U.S. are placed in the order from the lower land zone to the lower land zone, and thus, the construction of access roads and the construction of infrastructure (hereinafter collectively referred to as “infrastructure construction”) was planned to be implemented in the order of 1, 2, and 3 complexes. However, only when around 4 years have elapsed after the sale of U.S. building, the 1 complex infrastructure construction was completed, and around 201, the 2 complex infrastructure construction was in progress, around 2014. In the case of three complexes sold in lots, nine persons, including V, were unable to start the infrastructure construction until about 7 years have passed since the conclusion of the sale contract and the payment of the purchase price.
Accordingly, on June 11, 2014, nine persons, including V, appointed a law firm AE as a legal representative and filed a lawsuit against 16 persons, including the defendant, including the defendant, including the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap30525 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) and 16 persons, including E, such as the conclusion of the sale contract and the payment in full.