beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. Of the 3,328 square meters of land in Pyeongtaek-si C, it is marked with annexed drawings 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 1, 12, 2, 3, 7.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 30, 2009, the Defendant purchased 4,248 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si D from E to KRW 783,862,200, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 18, 2009, the registration of Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong-gu Housing Sitewon and the receipt No. 57646 on December 18, 2009. The Plaintiff is the father of the above E. The Plaintiff is the father of the land. 2) The Defendant, after acquiring the ownership of the above land, designated the land as a road by dividing it into 16 square meters, and changed the remaining 4,232 square meters into the land for factory (hereinafter “instant land for factory”).
3) The Defendant purchased the instant factory site from E to the entrance of the said factory site at KRW 5,00,000 (in addition to the purchase price of the said factory site, and the access road construction is separate from the purchase price of the said factory site, and the Defendant bears the burden) to secure E (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).
B. B. According to the instant special agreement, the Plaintiff consented to land use to the Defendant with respect to 228 square meters, among 3,328 square meters adjacent to the instant factory site, Pyeongtaek-si C Forest, adjacent to the instant factory site, in accordance with the instant special agreement.
2) In accordance with the above special agreement and the consent to land use, the Defendant shall indicate the annexed drawings indicated in the attached table No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 12, 1, 2, 3, 7, and 228 square meters inboard (a) and 228 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
(C) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to sell and purchase the instant land through an accurate survey, etc. on January 2, 2013, but the sales contract was not concluded on the grounds that there was no disagreement on the sales price.
2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff urged the conclusion of the sales contract for the instant land around June 10, 2013, and sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant at that time, claiming restitution of the instant land and damages in the event that the sales contract is not concluded by June 21, 2013.