1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the defendant's ground for appeal citing evidence No. 11, No. 12, and No. 13 were added to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following "2." Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The smaller portion between the 3rd part of the judgment of the first instance and the 12th part among the 11th part of the judgment is as follows.

On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court appealed to the Supreme Court 2017Do13282, but the Supreme Court rendered a decision on October 16, 2017.

B. The lower part between the fourth and seventh of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that since the Defendant purchased three parcels of land including the instant land from Plaintiff C, the owner of the instant land, to build a livestock product processing plant, the sales contract was concluded lawfully between Plaintiff C and the Defendant regarding the instant land.

In the case of a public health trial, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of a criminal trial, the fact that the criminal judgment already finalized was guilty of the same factual basis is valuable evidence. Thus, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, the facts opposed thereto cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69148, 69155, Feb. 14, 2008). The defendant who lawfully concluded a sales contract between the plaintiff C and the defendant.