beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from June 17, 2015 to August 2016.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant concluded a loan agreement between the Korea Asset Management Corporation and the Korea Asset Management Corporation with respect to each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet, which is State property (hereinafter “instant land”), regarding the period of use from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016, with the annual rent of KRW 600,000.
(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer the name of the instant loan agreement to the Plaintiff by entering into a new loan agreement with the Korea Asset Management Corporation by way of a negotiated contract instead of cancelling the instant loan agreement, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay KRW 7,000,000 as premium, as consideration for the said transfer.
(2) On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant visited the Daejeon District Headquarters of Daejeon District Headquarters of the Korea Asset Management Corporation and submitted a written application for termination of the instant loan agreement under the name of the Defendant, the borrower, and on May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 7,000,000 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] A, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff's primary assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, revocation by fraud, and claim for damages by the plaintiff's primary assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff as if it was possible to cultivate although the land category of Paragraph 1 stated in the attached Table No. 1 is forest land. Accordingly, the plaintiff is possible to cut down the night tree located on the land and planting it. Thus, the contract of this case will be concluded in this case.
Therefore, the plaintiff cancels the contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's deception, and the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for the amount of KRW 7,000,000 paid from the plaintiff as premium pursuant to the above contract.
claim for cancellation due to impossibility of performance.