청구이의
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is all dismissed.
3...
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On October 201, the Plaintiff entered into a construction agreement with respect to the construction work (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “construction work of this case”) on the land-based commercial buildings and multi-family houses (hereinafter referred to as the “building No. 1” and the “building No. 2” in each of the instant buildings, both of which are referred to as the “building No. 1” and “the instant building”) on the land-based and multi-family housing development (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction work”) of Samyang-gu Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “UB”) with respect to the construction work under which the construction work is contracted, as follows:
3. Construction period: Within five months from the date of payment of down payment.
4. Building No. 1 of this case: 3,00,000 won per square meter 607,332,000 won (including value-added tax) for the building No. 2 of this case
B. At around August 2013, 2013, the instant building was completed, but the instant construction was suspended without completing the construction of the instant 2 building.
C. Since September 2013, the subcontractors of the instant construction project, including Defendant B, occupied each of the instant buildings by asserting a lien.
On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to Defendant B a note 477,00,000 won per annum, payment at sight, place of issue, place of payment, and place of payment, respectively. On the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that a notary public recognizes a compulsory execution on the above promissory note’s gold obligations under No. 391, 2013, from the new law firm level.
E. Defendant B filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate with the notarial deed in this case with the title of execution and owned by the Plaintiff for the compulsory auction on May 15, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 4, 11 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s confirmation of the existence of the obligation against Defendant C ex officio with respect to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant C.