beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The husband C of the Defendant, the original owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) was killed on December 28, 2006 while operating the hospital in the instant building.
B. On January 12, 2007, the Defendant, along with his children, filed a qualified acceptance report with respect to the inheritance of the deceased C’s property, including the instant building, and completed the registration of creation of chonsegwon as to most of the instant building (the entire building excluding 3.96 square meters on the 1st floor) as to the registration of creation of a right to lease on a deposit basis, with the Changwon District Court from January 15, 2007 to April 22, 2007, upon the receipt of the said report on January 15, 2007.
C. However, on April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a contract for lease on a deposit basis (Evidence A 3) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the contract amount of KRW 100 million and the balance of KRW 290 million until May 20, 2007, and take over the above right to lease on a deposit basis,” and opened and operated an E Hospital in the instant building on May 25, 2007.
After that, on August 20, 2007, the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis was completed before August 17, 2007 due to the transfer from August 17, 2007.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, the building and site of this case were sold to J on February 4, 2008 at the Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch F and G real estate auction procedure, which started in the order of June 2007 and proceeded with, among others, the building and site of this case were sold to J, but the Plaintiff delivered the building of this case to H without receiving the dividends of auction due to the senior creditor, and closed the E Hospital on March 28, 2008.
[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 1-3, and Eul evidence No. 3, the result of each fact inquiry about Daegu Metropolitan City water-gu and Jinju Tax Office by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.
2. Both claims;
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.