beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 150,00,000 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related thereto, from December 24, 2015 to February 4, 2016.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this decision of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the primary claim is as follows, or the reasoning for this decision is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the judgment on the new argument made by the plaintiff in the trial is added. Thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence
In Part 10 of the 9th decision of the first instance court, the “Account for the Payment of Sale Price of the Defendant Union (Korean bank, account number: G)” shall be drawn up by the “Account for the Payment of Sale Price of the Apartment Units (Korean bank, account number: K) sold in the general course of the Defendant Union.”
Part 11 of the decision of the first instance shall add to the following:
“The Plaintiff asserts that the claim for tort is added as a preliminary cause of claim in the statement of grounds for appeal, but the amount of the claim is identical to that of the primary claim, and thus, the primary cause of claim is further asserted.
() The Plaintiff knew that the sales contract in this case was null and void due to the lack of a resolution of the general meeting of the association by the head of the Defendant Union, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff and being transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant Union account a sum of KRW 150 million in total as the contract deposit and intermediate payment. The Plaintiff asserts that, due to the aforementioned tort committed by the former president D, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 23,400,000 (=150,000 + the sale price + KRW 83,50,000 + the difference in the sale price and damages for delay.
Then, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the pre-sale contract of this case was concluded with the knowledge that the pre-sale contract of this case was invalid only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion is no other evidence to recognize it.