beta
Text
1. Defendant B pays KRW 20,881,451 to the Plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C and the defendant B
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the results of the request for appraisal to the D Appraisal Office of this Court and the entire purport of the pleadings.
On February 12, 2015, Defendant B and E concluded a sales contract with Defendant B to purchase KRW 1.830,000,000 ( March 19, 2015, on the date of the contract, the remainder payment of KRW 183,000,000,000,000 on the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”). Defendant B paid the down payment of KRW 183,00,000 to E on the date of the contract.
(hereinafter referred to as “the first sale of this case”) B.
In the first sale of this case, Defendant B and E agreed to transfer the full ownership of the subject matter of sale without any restriction on limited real rights, provisional seizure, etc., Defendant B and E entered into a provisional seizure registration of KRW 190 million on March 10, 2015, and the provisional seizure registration of KRW 130 million on March 16, 2015.
Accordingly, upon Defendant B’s request, around March 19, 2015, E returned KRW 183 million, which received the said down payment from Defendant B as the down payment. From April 2015, Defendant B accepted the free use of the first floor of the instant building from Defendant B.
C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from E on August 26, 2015 and executed the same year.
9. 30. 30. The registration of ownership transfer for the above building is completed in the future of the Plaintiff.
(F) The above trading between the Plaintiff and E is called “the second trading of this case.”
Defendant B sought payment of KRW 183,00,000 as penalty for the first sale of the instant case against E and the Plaintiff by Seoul Central District Court No. 2015Da5379317. Defendant B claimed that the second sale of the instant case was a fraudulent act, and sought revocation and restitution from the Plaintiff, but the said court sought revocation and restitution from the original state on July 14, 2016.