beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 181,698,842 to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from October 16, 2015 to November 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 2013, C, the Plaintiff, constructed a 4-story detached house (hereinafter “instant studio”) on the 572 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant land”) in Incheon Cheongjin-gun, Incheon, and transferred all the rights to the ownership of the instant land and the instant studio construction work to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff’s KRW 65.7 million from the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) and the same month.
8. A loan of KRW 90,180,000, total of KRW 157,500,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) was appropriated for the construction cost of the studio.
In order to secure the claim for the loan of this case on the same day, the Bank completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage, which is the debtor, the plaintiff, and the mortgagee of this case, on the same day.
C. On September 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) the purchase price of the instant land and the room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room on the contract day;
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). D.
The ownership of the instant land was transferred to the Defendant on November 19, 2013, and the name of the owner of the instant studio was changed to the Defendant on October 21, 2013, and on November 27, 2013, the registration of ownership preservation on the studio in the name of the Defendant was completed.
E. From November 2013 to February 2014, the Defendant only paid part of interest on the instant loan obligation through C to us bank, and did not accept or repay the instant loan obligation from the Plaintiff.
F. From January 27, 2014 to the same year by the Defendant
2. Until August 2, 2008, in the event that text messages were urged to repay the loans of this case on three occasions, they did not comply with this demand.