beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is as follows.
The plaintiff has a claim of KRW 200 million against C.
D and E are to secure the above C’s obligations on November 8, 201, Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul Central Government Government on their own;
G. Of H-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff bears the obligation of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
However, on May 2015, Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointors (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) purchased the instant building from D and E, and on September 2015, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement (Evidence A2) stating that “the Defendant shall be exempted from liability 200 million to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff” between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination D and E, on November 8, 201, drafted a charter contract (Evidence A 1) stating that the third floor of the instant building is leased to the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 200 million.
However, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants acquired the claim amounting to KRW 200 million against D and E, the sales contract for the commercial building No. 3 (the sales contract of May 29, 2015 with the purport that the Defendant purchases the instant building from D and E in the amount of KRW 11 billion), and the written agreement on No. 2 of No. 11 (the written agreement of September 10, 2015 with the purport that the Defendant is exempted from the obligation amounting to KRW 200 million against the Plaintiff), which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants took over the obligation amounting to KRW 200 million against D and E, shall not be recognized as the authenticity, and it shall not be admitted as evidence for lack of any other data to acknowledge the authenticity.
The defendants denies the authenticity of the above evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the seals affixed to the above documents are affixed to the defendants.