양수금
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 August 6, 2008, Co., Ltd. and F entered into a service agreement between the Defendants on a service agreement that the Defendants shall purchase real estate in the name of Jongno-gu Seoul, H, I, and J land and obtain authorization and permission (hereinafter “instant real estate”). In response, the Defendants purchased real estate in the name of E and F, and obtain authorization and permission, and in return, the Defendants shall pay KRW 1 billion in service cost (hereinafter “instant service agreement”).
B. Under the instant service contract, the Defendants purchased the instant real estate and registered in the name of K on October 6, 2008 due to the circumstances of K, Inc., E and F.
The registration of ownership transfer was completed, and 25 million won was paid out of the service costs under the instant service contract.
C. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E and F to acquire 200 million won (250 million won) from the Defendant for the obligation to return service charges owed by E and F against the Defendant. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said obligation, and the said notification reached the Defendants around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 2-1 through 4, 4, 9, 10, 17, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments Nos. 1, 2, 7-1 through 3
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant service contract is limited to the condition that the Defendants acquired permission to develop the instant real estate. Since the Defendants did not obtain permission to construct the instant real estate, the service cost of KRW 250 million received by the Defendants should be refunded. 2) The Defendant did not have agreed to file a lawsuit regarding the duty to refund service cost of KRW 250 million.
3) The obligation to refund service costs of KRW 250 million is subject to the ten-year general prescription period. Therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired as alleged by the Defendants. (B) Defendant B and D’s assertion 1) did not lapse, as alleged by the Defendants. The instant service contract is one billion won.