beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant A, International Trust Co., Ltd, C Co., Ltd, D, E, F, and G.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) Between I and J, I would like to proceed with the construction of a new building, and I would like to be the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City K and nine parcels (hereinafter “instant land”).
In the case of providing B as a building site, J changed the design of the instant building [the instant building was granted a building permit with the second floor above the ground level, the second floor above the ground level, the 11th floor above the ground level, the officetels of the second floor above the ground level (the instant building consisting of the main building and the 11th floor parking site above the ground level; hereinafter referred to as “instant building first floor”) and the first underground floor, and the mechanical parking lot of the first floor above the ground level (hereinafter referred to as “second building of this case”) on August 5, 2005.
In order to secure the return of investment proceeds on June 7, 200, I agreed to newly construct and sell profits. The J transferred the right to the construction of the building of this case to Defendant A, which he operated, and dealt with all matters. Defendant A entered into a sales contract with Daejin General Construction Co., Ltd. around July 31, 200; on April 13, 2001; on August 2, 2001; on December 2, 2003, the construction work was ordered to be completed; however, on June 16, 2005, the construction work was suspended without completion of all the construction work; and on June 16, 200, the I and the J concluded the sales contract with Defendant H on June 6, 200 with the right to purchase and sell the building of this case at KRW 6,00,000,000, the right to purchase and sell the building of this case, which was newly constructed on the instant land and its ground.
3) On June 29, 2005, Defendant H entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff and the instant building cost of KRW 6,050,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the construction work. The reasons are that Defendant H could not carry out construction work due to the lack of a comprehensive construction business license, and thus, Defendant H entered into the said contract formally with the Plaintiff and subsequently changed the contractor to the Plaintiff.
At the time, construction of the instant building was practically undertaken.