매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 23, 2012, an International Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Asset Trust”) concluded a trust agreement with respect to the sale management of Etel to be constructed on the land outside Gwangju-gu D and four lots.
B. On March 23, 2012, an international asset trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the said land by reason of sale, and an international asset trust completed each registration of transfer of ownership on the same day.
C. Since then, the Dondi City Development concluded a sale management trust contract with respect to international asset trust and Etel buildings.
On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, transferred the sales right to the Etel 1101 located in Defendant B and Gwangju Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant officetel”) to KRW 50 million. Around that time, the Plaintiff transferred the sales right to the Etel 11,00,000 won to the account of Defendant C, respectively, and transferred the sales right to KRW 4,50,000 to the account of Defendant C’s wife as a brokerage fee on April 12, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13370, Apr. 37, 2015; Act No. 13330, Apr. 14, 2015; Act No. 13300, Apr. 14, 2015.
E. On November 5, 2013, the instant officetel was registered for preservation in the name of a b&D city development. On May 28, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust was filed under the name of an international asset trust on April 14, 2015, and the registration of ownership transfer based on the name of G on November 8, 2016, respectively, on June 11, 2012.
F. Accordingly, on January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff resisted the development of a b&D city on the grounds of double sale, etc., and agreed to return 10 million won out of the sale price to the Plaintiff and exchange her room and room. Ultimately, the Plaintiff returned the sales contract for the instant officetel to the instant b&D city development, and on February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff returned the sales contract for the instant officetel to the b&D city development and the Etel 940 (hereinafter “office 940”).