beta
Text
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) received KRW 170,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously received it from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
Basic Facts
C on January 12, 2016, the registration of initial ownership was completed in relation to the instant housing.
The Defendant completed the move-in report with C on February 29, 2016, with the content that the Defendant leases the instant housing from C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 170,00,000, and from April 8, 2016 to April 7, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the lease contract”) between C and C, and after obtaining the fixed date on April 8, 2016, it completed the move-in report with the instant housing on the same day.
After that, with respect to the instant housing, after the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 27, 2016 on the ground of sale as of January 3, 2016, the establishment of a mortgage was completed on May 4, 2016 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 105,000,000.
After that, on January 6, 2017, voluntary auction was commenced upon E’s application with respect to the instant housing, and the Seoul Northern District Court.
F. At the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff purchased it and paid the proceeds of sale on December 4, 2018. At the auction procedure of this case, the Defendant did not demand a distribution. Meanwhile, as to the housing of this case, the Defendant concluded the lease contract of this case from D to April 8, 2016 with the contents that the Defendant leases the housing of this case from D during the period from April 8, 2016 to April 7, 2017 (Evidence No. 2; hereinafter referred to as the evidence No. 2), stating that there is no dispute over recognition, the Plaintiff is a false lease contract of 1,00,000,000,000, monthly rent of 60,000,000, and the lease contract of this case was concluded from April 2, 2016 to April 7, 2017 (Evidence No. 2; hereinafter referred to as “the lease contract”). The Plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was a genuine contract of 2,000,00.21.