beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2015 Chicago2006, May 2015
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”)’s implementation of the project and the relationship with the Defendant, etc. (i) Nonparty Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) is a business with the following contents around around 2014 (hereinafter “instant business”).
The name of the project was in force. The name of the project: the new construction of the Ethys in Sejong City (hereinafter referred to as the “new construction of this case”).
() A building site: E business size and use: Total floor area of 1,619 square meters, total floor area of 6,040.56 square meters, 2,40.56 square meters underground and 3 stories, and the use and disposal (sale or lease) of real estate developed with reinforced concrete structure of neighborhood living facilities (retail stores and offices): The defendant agreed to allow the non-party company to carry out the sales business of the instant case on or around 2014, and thereafter, the defendant was able to carry out the sales business of the instant case with the non-party company's representative director.
3) However, in the implementation of the instant project, there were various difficult problems, such as raising initial development funds and arranging intermediate payment loans, and there was a company to be in charge of resolving and executing construction.B. The Defendant, the representative director of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, F and the Defendant, 1), around June 2014, became H through G in order to resolve the above problems and find a company to be in charge of construction. H was the representative of the two construction companies at the time of the implementation of the instant project, and F and K, the representative director of the Plaintiff, were aware of the business relationship since about 10 years ago.
At that time, K, along with the defendant at that time, participated in the meetings of the defendant and H.
2) At that time, the Defendant proposed that H may participate in the instant project with respect to H, and that said H did not have the ability to lend the initial project funds to the non-party company. Then, the Defendant respondeded to H’s failure. 3)