beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.19 2013가합50836

정산금및손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 11, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased approximately 11,104 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”) from Jincheon-gu, Jincheon-gu, Jincheon-gu, and E 14 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the instant real property from G et al., as a witness, by developing it, to distribute gains from the premium to a third party upon receiving the premium from a third party upon approval for the change of national land use plan.

B. However, on May 21, 1997, the Defendant drafted a confirmation agreement stating that “The Defendant shall delegate all the rights of the instant real estate business to the Plaintiff, and if a business profit occurs thereafter, the Defendant shall divide the amount invested by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 60,000,000, and if damage occurs, the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the percentage of the Plaintiff 1:1” (hereinafter “instant confirmation agreement”).

C. On December 28, 1998, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”) to the effect that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 84 million from the Defendant.

The above-mentioned amount shall be borrowed in full, and the due date shall be approximately February 26, 1999, and the due date shall be as of February 26, 199: Provided, That if the apartment business permission in J is completed and the sale becomes final and conclusive, the due date shall be the date of payment, and if the sale is delayed, the due date of payment shall be subject to mutual consultation.

In addition, the amount of loan which has been deposited in the loan and passbook up to now shall be the above amount.

There is no other loan or investment fund. D.

On the other hand, on July 15, 2006, the defendant extended a loan of KRW 84 million to the plaintiff according to the loan certificate of this case to the non-party I corporation, the representative director of which is the defendant.