beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가단5174790

사해신탁취소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff (A), C, D, and E (the Plaintiff et al.) on July 2, 2012 to provide funds for the construction and sale of officetels buildings (hereinafter “the instant project”) on the site of the project owned by Bogman’s Day, and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff (A), C, D, and E (the Plaintiff et al.) for an additional payment of KRW 2 billion with investment profits in addition to the principal if the loan was made for 18 months. As a measure to guarantee the return of the said input funds, D lent 2.8 billion won on behalf of the corporation deposit (hereinafter “e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the purport that no objection is raised even if compulsory execution was conducted.

B. The Plaintiff et al. decided to deposit the loan KRW 2 billion in the account designated by the Plaintiff, etc. pursuant to Article 5 of the investment loan agreement of this case. The Plaintiff et al. decided not to participate in the instant project and decided not to lend the loan KRW 2 billion to the original B pursuant to the additional agreement with the Plaintiff et al., once he et al. (the Plaintiff et al. could not directly transfer the above KRW 2 billion to the account under the name of the Plaintiff et al. because the Plaintiff et al. had already failed to pay a considerable amount of tax due to the reason that the Plaintiff et al. had already been in arrears). The expenses incurred in implementing the instant project were disbursed through consultation with the Plaintiff each time, and the expenditure was to be treated as the loan pursuant to the instant investment loan agreement.

C. However, around February 2013, B and the Plaintiff et al. failed to acquire the ownership of the instant project site, which was owned by Bobius, and D are acting on behalf of B for the purpose of ensuring the return of the investment funds by the Defendant et al. under the original loan investment contract.