beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 20, 1992 to May 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. (1) On October 28, 1992, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for KRW 35 million on the part (A) in the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) connected each point of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the forest land owned by the Defendant and Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant forest”) with each point of the 1,2, 3, 4, and 500 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
(hereinafter “instant sales contract.” At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the transfer registration of ownership on the instant land may be conducted after one year, as indicated in the cadastral map, and may be transferred at the same time, and may be extended under mutual agreement.
(2) On October 28, 1992, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 5 million on the down payment, KRW 25 million on November 15, 1992, KRW 35 million on December 20, 1992, and KRW 5 million on December 20, 1992.
(3) On April 4, 2010, the Defendant prepared a letter to the Plaintiff stating that “The Plaintiff shall divide it into the display of this contract by October 31, 2010, and allow access roads to be interfered with.”
(4) On November 3, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on November 3, 2010 that the instant land shall be registered in the name of a person designated by the Plaintiff, and in order to secure this, the Defendant shall create and grant the right to collateral security under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant forest land as the maximum debt amount of KRW 35 million.
(5) On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on May 23, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's declaration of intent to cancel the contract for the delay of the payment of the defendant.