매매대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional claim in the trial are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the court of first instance is as follows: (a) each statement of evidence Nos. 7 through 13 (including each number), which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence submitted in the court of first instance; (b) among the part of "1. plaintiff's assertion" in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, the second to third to fourth are as follows; and (c) with respect to the plaintiff's claim for a tort for which the plaintiff added in the court of first instance to the court of first instance, the second to third to fourth are as follows; and (d) except for the addition of the judgment below, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is
[Supplementary part] Defendant C transferred the ownership of 22 units remaining in the course of settling the real estate consulting contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter the above real estate is referred to as “the remaining real estate of this case”) and borrowed the loan, and then Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the “D”).
() The Defendants agreed to pay KRW 850 million to the Plaintiff. However, despite the completion of the registration of ownership transfer for the remaining real estate of this case, the Defendants paid KRW 380 million to the Plaintiff and D, and did not pay KRW 470 million to the Plaintiff and D. Since the Plaintiff and D’s share ratio is 41:59, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 192.7 million equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the said unpaid amount x KRW 41/100.
2. Determination as to claims based on tort
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had no intent to pay KRW 850 million to the Plaintiff and D as an agreed amount, but deceiving the Plaintiff and D to pay KRW 850 million upon the transfer of the ownership of the remaining real estate of this case.
Plaintiff
In addition, D transferred the ownership of the remaining real estate to the Defendants, but the Defendants did not pay KRW 470 million out of the agreed amount.
Therefore, it is true.