매매대금반환
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 reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's supplementary or supplementary determination as to the part concerning which the defendant contests as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional and supplementary judgments
A. As to the assertion that the Defendant is not a contracting party, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, since the purchaser of the instant H land is not C.
The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D under the name of her husband C for the instant land
(Evidence No. 1). However, in light of the fact that D, a seller, testified to the effect that it concluded the above sales contract with the Plaintiff (the testimony of the first instance court), D and the Defendant sold the instant H land to a third party, and the fact that D and the Defendant prepared a letter of agreement or written confirmation to pay to “Plaintiff” in addition to the profit therefrom (each of the evidence No. 4 and No. 6), etc., it can be deemed that the Plaintiff and D were the parties to the contract.
Therefore, according to the above opinion, the plaintiff is a party to the above contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da207928, Jul. 22, 2016). The defendant's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.
B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with D as to the assertion on the joint and several liability with D, because the payment to the Plaintiff is a partnership obligation based on D and D’s partnership business. However, as otherwise alleged, the Defendant and D are jointly and severally liable.
Even if the plaintiff, as a creditor, can claim payment against D and the defendant or either of both parties, the above assertion is rejected.
C. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion on the claim amount is not only the sales profit of KRW 70 million but also the sales profit of KRW 70 million.