beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of the claim in this court, shall be modified as follows:
Defendant C, .
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the first instance, except in the following cases: (a) the first instance court’s “1. Basic Facts” is the same as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part shall be cited in accordance with
【2) On March 16, 2005, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with Defendant C’s co-ownership share on the instant land before the instant partition (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant C, and Plaintiff A paid KRW 450 million in total from March 16, 2005 to April 15, 2005.
A person shall be appointed.
2. The parties' assertion
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant C was primarily obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer of W land to the plaintiffs pursuant to the instant sales contract, but failed to implement it by the end of 2015.
As agreed in the second written confirmation of this case, Defendant C is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 450 million, KRW 60 million to Plaintiff B, and interest accrued from the day following the date of payment of the purchase price for each of the said amounts.
B) Preliminaryly, Defendant C had completed the registration of ownership transfer by double selling W land to third parties, such as X, and due to such unlawful act of breach of trust, Defendant C had suffered damages equivalent to KRW 450 million for Plaintiff A and KRW 60 million for Plaintiff B. Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the damages for the tort, KRW 450 million, KRW 60 million for Plaintiff B, and the damages for delay. 2) Defendant C had the comprehensive power of representation from Defendant D and agreed to return the transfer of ownership or the purchase price to the Plaintiffs.
Defendant D transferred the status of the purchaser of Defendant C, and the plaintiffs are actually in a position of joint seller with Defendant C.
Accordingly, Defendant.