건축주명의변경
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall include the costs incurred by the intervention.
1. The reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for an additional determination under paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. 1) As to the preserved claim, the Intervenor’s assertion is based on the notarial deed of a repayment contract dated November 22, 2005, which was signed by the Plaintiff on November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s side”).
(2) Of the agreed amount to be paid to the Plaintiff, KRW 650 million out of KRW 850,000,000,000 was to be paid to six households out of the apartment of this case. On August 9, 2011, an intervenor was unable to pay to the Plaintiff the above six households due to the transfer of all the business rights regarding the apartment of this case to the Defendant. Therefore, the intervenor is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 650,000 due to the nonperformance of the obligation. Meanwhile, the extinctive prescription of the above damage claim was progress from August 9, 201, and the lawsuit of this case was filed on September 2, 2013, and the extinctive prescription of the above claim was not complete. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, No. 2, and evidence No. 2, and No. 1,500,000,000,000 won out of the notarial deed No. 1,500,000 won,000 won.