beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 13, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants to sell the fourth floor Nos. 7 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff for KRW 1.7 billion. At the time, the instant apartment was established with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million, the maximum debt amount of KRW 122,400,000, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million, respectively.
B. With respect to the payment of KRW 1.7 billion in the purchase price of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a sales contract stating that Defendant B and F jointly owned KRW 202 of the second floor (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of the building G-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, in which Defendant B and F shared shares of KRW 1.7 billion, shall transfer ownership to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff entered into a receipt that received KRW 800 million from the Defendants (No. 4-1 and No. 2). In addition, the Plaintiff received KRW 120 million from the Defendants.
C. Each of the above mortgages established on the apartment of this case was cancelled on October 15, 2009 and October 16, 2009, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Defendants on October 19, 2009. The instant apartment was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on December 11, 2009. At the time, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on October 11, 2009. At the time of the instant apartment, the establishment registration of mortgage (debtor B and the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd.) remains as it remains.
Meanwhile, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant apartment (Seoul Western District Court 2012Gadan9006) against the Plaintiff who did not deliver the instant apartment. In the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff rejected the delivery of the instant apartment by asserting that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 610 million out of the purchase price of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff rejected the delivery of the instant apartment on August 13, 2012 with H, represented by the Defendants, as follows.