beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 163,077,200 as well as 5% per annum from December 3, 2015 to January 11, 2017, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 21, 2014, Defendant C concluded a sales contract under which the purchase price of the instant apartment was KRW 960,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Defendant C paid KRW 96,000,000, the down payment amount of KRW 96,000,00, which was newly constructed on the H block in the Gangnam-gu Housing Zone (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. In addition to the instant sales contract, Defendant C concluded a balcony expansion contract with the price of KRW 29,273,000, and the price of options contract at KRW 11,507,000, respectively.
C. Since the instant apartment building is to be built under the Housing Act, it shall meet certain qualifications to purchase the said apartment building (hereinafter “qualification for subscription”). Defendant C was sold the instant apartment by using unlawful means, such as false marriage, even though it fails to meet its qualification.
Defendant F introduced to the Plaintiff the resale of the sales right under the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales right”). On November 25, 2015, the period during which the restriction on resale of the said sales right was past, the Plaintiff signed a contract under which Defendant C purchased the said sales right (hereinafter “instant resale contract”) from the Defendant C as a real estate broker, and acquired the status under the instant sales contract by entering into a brokerage of Defendant D, a real estate broker.
The Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Defendant the sum of KRW 96,00,000 paid by Defendant C in accordance with the instant sales contract, KRW 8,781,90, and KRW 3,452,100, and KRW 181,234,00,00 in total, paid by Defendant C in accordance with the instant sales contract, and KRW 73,00,000 under the instant sales contract.
E. The Plaintiff’s KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B under the pretext of acceptance for the conclusion of the resale contract of this case, and KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant D under the pretext of brokerage commission.