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. Basic facts
A. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B, C (hereinafter “C”) and D, the owner of the RA (hereinafter “instant LA”) constructed on Q Q Q Q on the ground of the Gu, to sell the instant LA in lots at KRW 371,880,000, as the sale price.
B. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200,000,000 to the account in the name of T, and KRW 50,000,000 on January 10, 2018, and KRW 5,000,00 on February 12, 2018, to the account in the name of the Defendant B, respectively. On February 12, 2018, the Plaintiff wired KRW 45,00,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant B.
C. Defendant E obtained a provisional attachment order against Defendant B, C, and D with respect to all of the households, including the instant lending S, by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-si 2018Kadan366, on October 2, 2018, the registration of preservation of ownership in each of Defendant B, C, and D’s name, respectively, was completed on October 2, 2018 by the commission of the provisional attachment registration.
Since then, Defendant E, I, J, K, L, M, N Association,O, and P completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on each of the loans of this case.
E. Defendant F, Co., Ltd., G, and H are the persons entitled to provisional seizure on each of the instant loan.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B, C, and D, a seller of the instant loan, would reduce the sales price to KRW 300,000 if he/she pays the sales price to the Plaintiff within the city that led to insufficient construction costs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000,000 from November 22, 2017 to February 12, 2018.
After that, around March 2018, the section for exclusive use of the loan inside this case was established with independence in structural use. Since the Plaintiff paid all the purchase price before the building was completed, the loan S in this case was completed at the Plaintiff’s expense.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff acquired the loan of this case in its original condition, the name of Defendant B, C, and D.