beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 13, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract between E and E on the land of five parcels, other than Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and Gyeonggi-do, which are the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “F land”). Therefore, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract between the Plaintiff’s land location and Gyeonggi-do, and the Plaintiff’s land and its ground shopping district, which are the Plaintiff’s husband, to exchange the pertinent land with each other, such as “F land” for convenience.
B. On April 206, E again agreed with Defendant D on the following: (a) on June 18, 2013, part of the lands was divided into M and N land; (b) on September 16, 2013, some of the lands divided into O land (the part of the land K is again an agreement for the transfer of ownership to E); and (c) on the exchange of the business center located in the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City owned by Defendant B, the wife of Defendant D (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).
C. Under the above agreement, the Plaintiff and Defendant D entered into a sales contract on April 20, 2006 with the transfer of ownership to Defendant D in the form of a sales contract without omitting the registration under the name of E (or H) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Accordingly, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above lands on May 8, 2006.
On May 28, 2010, Defendant D created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 91 million with respect to each of the said lands to the Bupyeong Agricultural Cooperative, the amount of which was KRW 70 million.
E. However, both the Plaintiff and Defendant D, in fact, did not K, but C, were subject to registration conversion on February 20, 2012, and on February 21, 2012, some of which were divided into U and V land, was thought to sell and purchase or exchange the land. However, on the wind of erroneously interpreting the descriptions in the cadastral map, K instead of P in the sales contract, was erroneously stated as the subject matter of sale and purchase, and accordingly, K’s land.