대여금반환등
1. Upon the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the Defendant: (a) KRW 120,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from March 1, 2015 to March 1, 2015.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 (the defendant asserts that the defendant's spouse Eul affixed the defendant's seal imprint without permission, but the defendant's testimony that conforms to the defendant's argument is insufficient to admit the assertion only, and rather, it seems that the defendant's testimony was made genuine according to the defendant's will as seen below), and evidence Nos. 3 and 5 can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments as a whole.
1) The Plaintiff is a Korean Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korean Asset Trust”) with respect to Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.
2) On November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a management-type land development trust agreement with the Defendant for the sale of KRW 510,500,00 of the Seo-gu Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the sale of KRW 510,50,00 on November 4, 200 (No. 1 of the certificate and the purchaser column of the sales contract stated the above number in the notice of the Defendant’s mobile phone number (D)). At the time, the Defendant deposited the sale price into a trust account (bank: 164-9103-91704) designated by the Korea Asset Trust (a bank: 153,150,000 of the remainder, which was paid to the said account by the last day of the designation date of occupancy.
3. Meanwhile, Article 18(3) of the apartment supply contract of this case automatically reverts to the rights and obligations of a Korean asset trust under an apartment supply contract in cases where the trust contract concluded between Korea and the Plaintiff is terminated or terminated, and the defendant is aware of this fact, confirmation of the conclusion of the apartment purchase contract of this case, and no objection is raised.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement on the instant apartment on February 28, 2013, which set the closing date for designating the occupancy of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant.