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. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, and 4.
On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B, the owner of the building, to sell Sho (hereinafter “instant loan”) among the RR buildings located in Q Q Q of the Gu, for the purchase price of KRW 320,00,000.
B. On July 16, 2018, the date of the sale contract, the Plaintiff issued a cashier’s check of KRW 150,000,000 at par value, and paid KRW 150,000 to the remainder on September 10, 2018, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation of full payment from Defendant B, C (hereinafter “C”), and D.
C. Meanwhile, on October 2, 2018, Defendant E obtained a provisional attachment order against Defendant B, C, and D with respect to all of the households, including the instant loan, by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-si 2018Kadan366, and the provisional attachment registration was completed in the name of Defendant B, C, and D with respect to the instant loan on October 2, 2018 upon the entrustment of the provisional attachment registration.
Since then, Defendant E, I, J, K, L, M, N, Inc.,O, and P completed the registration of establishment of each of the instant loan loans.
E. Defendant F, Inc., G, and H are the persons entitled to provisional seizure on the instant loan.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,00,000 upon the receipt of the instant loan from Defendant B, C, and D, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff for the remainder of KRW 150,000 on the ground that the said Defendants would pay the sales price within the time when the said Defendants failed to meet the construction costs. On March 2018, the Plaintiff completed the instant loan with the Plaintiff’s expense by fully paying the sales price for the instant loan that was established under divided ownership by maintaining the independence in its structural use.
Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the loan of this case at its original time.