beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants amounted to KRW 82,343,509, respectively, to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from November 11, 2014 to December 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase KRW 1,881 square meters (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) out of KRW 1,305,00,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 2,040 square meters in Yong-si, Young-gu, In which the Defendants shared one half of the shares. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff divided the instant land (the remaining 159 square meters, which was not sold, was divided into I land on September 16, 2013, and the land category of the instant land was changed to miscellaneous land on March 17, 2014).
In addition, the Plaintiff purchased from J the land of this case in the amount of KRW 1,785 square meters (the land category was changed to a miscellaneous land on March 17, 2014 in the calendar calendar city) from J on November 26, 2012, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 1, 2088 square meters (the area was reduced to KRW 1,776 square meters as a part of the above land was divided on September 16, 2013; the land category was changed to a miscellaneous land on March 17, 2014). The Plaintiff purchased the shares of KRW 909,000,000 on June 28, 2013 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership between Plaintiff 182, Jul. 18, 2018 (the Plaintiff’s representative director) and Plaintiff 187/186/188).
B. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with F Company (E) in order to build a new building of the above L/K L/K building (office building and factory operation) on the instant land and the instant land. It was found that a mixture of construction waste was buried in the instant land and the above L/K’s underground (hereinafter “instant waste”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants and J to treat the wastes buried as above.
The defendants have raised objections to the location and volume of waste reclamation, and further, the thought of appropriate waste disposal costs has been too different from the plaintiff.