beta
Text
1. Defendant D and E jointly share KRW 200 million with the Plaintiff and Defendant D with November 22, 2017 regarding the amount of KRW 200 million.
Reasons
1. As to the claim against the defendant B and C
A. Basic facts 1) On August 25, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased from Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), the representative director of which was Defendant D, 201m2,415m2 and G 397m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 28, 2016. (2) The Plaintiff asserted that on September 13, 2016, Defendant B, and C, who was an employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd, sold the instant land as if the instant land were developed into a central commercial area, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the return of KRW 4777 million in the purchase price (Seoul Western District Court 2016Ga2567, 2567, hereinafter “Prior D lawsuit”).
On August 30, 2017, the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim was rendered on the ground that ten years have elapsed since the limitation period of the right to cancel the fraudulent expression in the preceding lawsuit was ten years, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff’s assertion: The Defendants are expected to develop the instant land into the business function and central commercial area. After two to three years, the Defendants sold the said land by deceiving the Plaintiff at a price of at least twice the acquisition price. Such deception by the Defendants, the Plaintiff incurred damages of KRW 466,581,500, the difference between KRW 477 million in the purchase price and KRW 110,419,500 in the officially announced land price, and KRW 366,581,500 in the annual interest thereon, and KRW 200,000,000 in the annual interest thereon. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the said damages, which is a part of the said damages, and the claim by Defendant B and C is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata effect of the judgment of the preceding lawsuit, and the said Defendants’ claim for damages by the Plaintiff was concluded by the lapse of the ten-year extinctive prescription.
C. Determination of Defendant B and C’s defense prior to the merits is recognized.