손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant jointly invested and decided to purchase at KRW 118,000,00 each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested KRW 55,80,000,000 among the purchase price of each of the instant lands and KRW 2,80,000,000, totaling KRW 120,800,000, and KRW 65,000,000 among the purchase price of each of the instant lands, and KRW 120,80,000.
However, by taking advantage of the fact that the right to collateral security of KRW 100 million was established on each of the instant lands in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 100 million during the voluntary auction procedure for each of the instant lands. The Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 35,00,000 excluding the Defendant’s investment deposit of KRW 65,000 (=10 million - 65,000,000).
2. The defendant's decision on the defense prior to the merits of this case should be viewed as an objection to the amount distributed to the defendant in the voluntary auction procedure of each of the lands of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of this case should be contested with the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. Thus, the defendant
On the other hand, the instant lawsuit does not assert that there is procedural or substantive defect with respect to the distribution schedule prepared in the voluntary auction procedure for each of the instant lands, but is a lawsuit claiming that there was a separate investment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and seeking the return of investment money against the Defendant, and thus, the substance thereof does not constitute an objection to distribution.
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
3. As alleged by the Plaintiff in its determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, we examine whether the Defendant jointly made an investment with the Plaintiff and purchased each of the instant lands, and on the buyer column of the sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) on each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff’s joint purchaser, other than the Plaintiff, appears to exist.
1. However, witness D's testimony is himself.