beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiffs were co-owners of 651m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
The instant land was included in the urban development project zone in Young-si, the Defendant, the project implementer, and the compensation for the instant land was recognized as KRW 1,432,200,000 in the adjudication procedure.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute between the defendant and the defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 3 (including the provisional number), the assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant to sell the land of this case to the defendant on a usual basis ( approximately KRW 3,932,500,000). The defendant did not implement the above sales contract, but paid KRW 1,432,200,00 for losses and accepted the land of this case by paying KRW 1,432,20,000 for expropriation procedures in accordance with the above urban development project.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs, due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the sales contract, sustained 563,928,750 won (=1,127,857,50 won (=2,560,057,500 won under the sales contract (=3,932,500 square meters x 651 square meters) - compensation 1,432,20,000 won) ± 2). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek the Defendant to pay the above damages and damages for delay.
Judgment
According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and witness E's testimony on September 2012, the defendant representative director F expressed to the plaintiffs that he will purchase each of the of the instant lands at KRW 13,000,000 per square meter ( approximately KRW 3,932,500/m2). However, each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 6 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 can be known by the purport of the whole pleadings. In other words, the defendant was consulted with the land owners in the business area to undertake an urban development project, and the contract was not prepared between the plaintiffs and the land owners. ② On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the defendant for a trade consultation.