beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 112,590,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from December 15, 2014, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In order to enter into a sales contract between Defendant B and D, and to prepare the Plaintiff’s new marriage house, Defendant C entered into a sales contract under the name of Defendant B with respect to the E 501 (hereinafter “instant house”) owned by D, in the Plaintiff’s brokerage on April 5, 2014, with the purchase price of KRW 250 million, and the down payment of KRW 25 million shall be paid at that place, and the remainder of KRW 225 million shall be paid by April 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
B. (1) Defendant B made a registration of ownership transfer and establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant house (1) and agreed to pay in cash the remainder amount of KRW 5 million between D and D on May 18, 2014, the sum of the down payment and the remainder amount of the down payment shall be paid up to June 5, 2014, and KRW 136 million among them shall be paid up to June 5, 2014.
(2) On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was prepared to pay the remainder from the Defendants, and upon receiving a request to implement a security loan on the instant housing, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 136 million from a new bank as security and paid it to D.
(3) However, Defendant B delayed the payment of the remaining purchase price of KRW 19 million, and it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to deliver transaction-related documents after having paid the purchase price in full. On June 5, 2014, Defendant B filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of the transfer of ownership in relation to the instant housing without attaching the transaction-related documents.
(4) After the Seoul Central District Court had contact that the application for registration can be dismissed on the grounds of the omission of transaction-related documents, Defendant C had priority over the Plaintiff.