beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. Defendant (Appointeds), Appointors, and Defendant B’s respective Plaintiff
(a) 137,474.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants and D jointly own the shares of 94.48/9, each of 566.9 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cropo-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and owned by one household, an aggregate building, which is an aggregate building, comprised of six households on the instant land (hereinafter “Gu building”), around May 2001, after demolishing the Gu building around May 201, the Defendants and D decided to reconstruct a multi-household house (G apartment, hereinafter “instant building”) with the size of 1st, 6th, and 10 households on the instant land (the first, second, and 5th generation of the first, second, and six floors), and from the head of Gangnam-gu Office on February 7, 2002, the Defendants and D were the owner of the instant building to newly construct the instant building.
B. After that, on March 18, 2002, the Defendants and D entered into a joint project agreement with F as a representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to promote the reconstruction project of the instant building as a joint business proprietor. On March 31, 2002, the Defendants and D entered into a reconstruction agreement with E. According to the said rebuilding agreement, the Defendants and D provided the instant land, and E performs the reconstruction project implementation and construction, and the Defendants and D agreed to have the remainder of four households.
C. E commenced with removal and new construction around April 2002, the old building was destroyed and lost on October 11, 2002, and around May 2003, when the construction of new construction was followed by the Accounting Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Calculation Comprehensive Construction”) and suspended on November 30, 2003. At the time, the building of this case was completed with the fifth floor structural construction and outer concrete construction, and the height height ratio was 47%.
The building of this case is now in the same state as above.
The Defendants and D provided the relevant households of the old building as security and received loans from the National Bank to promote the above reconstruction project, and the details provided as security to the National Bank are as follows.
(e)in other words,