beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purport of the entire pleadings, either in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 3 to 5:
1) Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office Officetel No. 502 (hereinafter “instant Officetel”)
(2) On April 9, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D on April 10, 2012 with respect to the 5/6 shares, the Defendant: (a) determined the instant officetel as KRW 80,000,000 from D; (b) completed the move-in report on the instant officetel after obtaining the fixed date on the lease agreement from D (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (c) began to possess the instant officetel upon delivery on the 14th of the same month.
3) On April 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D to claim the return of the lease deposit (Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan25048) upon the termination of the instant lease contract at the expiration of the term, and the said court on August 7, 2014, paid KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant on September 15, 2014, and the Defendant delivered the instant officetel to D by the same date, but the Defendant did not raise any objection against the ruling of recommending settlement that “D shall be delivered to D at the same time, and each of the above obligations shall be fulfilled at the same time.”
9. Around 16, the above decision to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter “the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case”) became final and conclusive as it is.
B. 1) The Defendant’s decision to recommend the settlement of the instant case as an executive title to commence compulsory auction on May 8, 2015, the Seoul Eastern District Court E on May 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) with respect to the 5/6 shares owned D among the instant officetels.
(2) On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of 5/6 shares among the instant officetels as the highest price purchaser in the instant compulsory auction procedure, and paid 67,400,000 won in full.