투자금반환 등 청구의소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 10, 2009, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and D (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong”) made an investment in real estate business, and entered into a partnership agreement with Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant partnership agreement”) with the content that they intend to manage and operate the same business, and collected the investment amount of KRW 40,000,000 in total, each of which is KRW 10,000.
B. On July 10, 2009, partners held custody of KRW 40,000,000 collected from the partners as above. However, in a case where the above amount is withdrawn and used without the consent of all the partners, they agreed to compensate for the penalty equivalent to twice the amount invested (hereinafter “instant compensation agreement”).
C. The partners paid each of the above KRW 27,940,000,000, including the above KRW 10,000,000, to Defendant C with the investment money under the instant trade agreement.
On October 16, 2009, the Defendants purchased each of the F apartment 103 units in the name of Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon under the name of the Defendant C, and on October 22, 2009, purchased each of the F apartment units 103 units in the name of the Defendant, and on December 7, 2009, paid two of the down payment payments for the business buildings sold in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10, 19, 21, 22, and 23 (including paper numbers), witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff seeking the return of investment and the payment of penalty in accordance with the instant compensation agreement to the Defendants in the instant lawsuit.
With regard to this, the defendants asserted that since the real estate purchased with the investment money of the partners and the right to sell commercial buildings are owned by the partners, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because D is excluded from the defendant, even though it is an inherent necessary co-litigation as a lawsuit concerning the partnership property.
On the other hand, the defendant's above assertion is based on the premise that the lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit concerning the real estate and the right to sell commercial buildings purchased with the investment of the partners.