beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On April 29, 2009, the Defendant entered into a construction agreement with G on April 12, 201, on the ground that he/she was delegated from the subcontractor on April 29, 201, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the name of B on February 12, 2010, as the owner of the building of the 11th floor above the ground and the 4th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel”) located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, (Seoul-gu, Yangyang-gu) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetel”). The Plaintiff entered into a construction agreement with G on April 29, 2009 and carried out the construction work under the name of B, and the Plaintiff entered into a construction work
On August 31, 2010, F on behalf of the Defendant: (a) drafted a real estate lease agreement stating that the instant officetel I will be leased to the Nonparty Company as the respective rental period between August 31, 2010 and March 30, 2011, for the payment of some of the non-party Company’s construction cost, KRW 30,00,000, and KRW 60,000,000, respectively, for the instant officetel I to the non-party Company.
(2) On July 20, 2007, K, which was substantially operating a non-party company claiming the plaintiff's claim as to the grounds for claim of the whole pleadings, was liable to L around 20,00,000 won and the non-party company guaranteed its debt around January 2009.
On or around July 2010, the Plaintiff was issued a receipt to the effect that he/she received KRW 131,090,000 from Ma who represented L on or around August 2010 to April 2014 in return for the repayment of KRW 135,00,00 from Ma who received reimbursement of KRW 135,00,00 from Ma who paid for L on or around April 23, 2014, and received the original copy of the instant lease agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiff can exercise the right to guarantee against L's non-party company under the provision of subrogation, and it is against the instant officetel I and J between the non-party company and the defendant.