beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim filed by this court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
However, the following judgments are added to the Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim claim.
2. The defendant's assertion and counterclaim claim. Since the plaintiff was well aware of the circumstances that the ownership of the share in the land stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is lost by acquiring a successful bid at the auction procedure, the plaintiff's claim is not permissible by violating the principle of good faith. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the right to claim the sale of the share in each land at an appropriate price of KRW 21 million. The defendant is entitled to claim the sale of the share in each land at an appropriate price of KRW 21 million, and at the same time he is paid the plaintiff with the above purchase price of KRW 21 million.
The principle of trust and good faith is an abstract norm that the parties to a legal relationship should not exercise rights or perform obligations in a way that violates equity or trust, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of such rights on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, the parties granted good faith to the other party.
In light of the concept of justice, it should be objectively and objectively deemed that the other party’s belief is in a legitimate state, and the exercise of rights against the other party’s faith should be in such a state that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da6404, Sept. 4, 2014; 2017Da288757, Apr. 26, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following facts are revealed: (a) I, etc., selling each of the above land shares to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the ownership of the above building owned by the Defendant was lost at the time of receiving the successful bid in each of the above land auction procedures; or (b)