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. On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B and Dongbcheon-si E building 306 (the Plaintiff and Defendant B refer to 19.83 square meters, which is part of the above E building 305 square meters and 152.07 square meters, as 306 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant D to acquire the right to lease of KRW 45,00,000 in price.
However, in fact, Defendant B was not the lessee of the instant building, and Defendant D was also aware of this fact at the time of brokerage.
Defendant B and D, in collusion with Defendant C, knew that the building of this case was made in lots, acquired the right of lease of the building of this case, and attempted to sell it and acquire the difference in premium and divide profits therefrom.
Accordingly, Defendant B agreed to negotiate with F and G (hereinafter “F, etc.”) and pay 30,000,000 won for the premium to them, citing this fact, Defendant B himself belongs to the Plaintiff as the genuine lessee of the instant building, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and received KRW 45,00,000 for the premium from the Plaintiff.
In a case where Defendant B, rather than the genuine lessee of the instant building, knew that the Plaintiff was a person who seeks to obtain the difference in the premium due to the so-called “pro-called” method (referring to the act of acquiring gains from the resale of the right of lease by attaching a premium to the lessee, after negotiating with the lessee and making an agreement to pay a certain amount of premium to the lessee) rather than the real lessee of the instant building, the Plaintiff could have caused the difference in the premium to be paid by the Plaintiff to the above F, etc., without entering into a contract with Defendant B, by directly concluding the acquisition agreement with the genuine lessee, and by directly entering into the acquisition agreement with the genuine lessee, the Plaintiff could have caused the difference between KRW 45,00,000 paid to the Defendant B and KRW 30,000,000, which is the difference between the said F, etc.
The Defendants, as seen above, reselled the right of lease by way of the transfer of the right of lease from F, etc.