조합원지분환급금
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5:
The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and non-party D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) jointly leased buildings 1 (246m2, each of 1,246m2, and two household buildings (246m2, each of 1,246m2) and two buildings on land of 2,518m2, Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City from F, and registered the ownership transfer of the said real estate under the name of E around September 18, 201, when the compulsory auction procedure for the above building site and buildings was initiated and the lease deposit cannot be refunded due to the commencement of compulsory auction against the above building site and buildings on June 16, 201, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the non-party D, and the E (hereinafter referred to as “E”), jointly, shall be awarded a successful bid on September 13, 2012, and the debtor as the Industrial Bank of Korea established a collateral security right of KRW 2,00,000,000 for each of the above real estate, and acquired the said real estate under the name of E around September 18, 2018.
B. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. appointed E as a manager at the time of the partnership agreement, while each partner’s share was set at 20%, and E as a security for the said share was set at a mortgage of KRW 408,000,000 for each maximum debt amount of KRW 408,000 for the Plaintiff, D and the Defendants, and five persons jointly paid the interest on bank loans and the amount of tax imposed on real estate.
C. Since that, D, a partner, withdrawn from the partnership as of July 17, 2013.
However, from September 18, 2012, E paid bank loans interest and taxes with rental income accrued from the above real estate from around September 18, 2012, but did not disclose the details to its partners, but did not distribute profits. As the Plaintiff demanded the return of 20% of the union property, E returned only KRW 80 million after deducting KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s 100 million out of the union property at the time of the successful bid.
2. The party's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties is a service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to E.