beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Defendant 1, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is the executor of the business (hereinafter “instant sales business”) to newly build and sell the Daejeon Sung-gu B building (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant Korea Assets Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Assets Trust”) is the trustee who entered into a trust agreement with the Defendant 1’s establishment of a trust agreement with the instant sales business, and Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is the starting work of the instant building.
On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant Korea Asset Trust to sell Quaker 121, Quaker 1, 121 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
On May 30, 2014, the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment amount of KRW 96,172,880, and the intermediate payment of KRW 48,085,120, total of KRW 144,258,00 (=96,172,80 + + 48,05,120) to the Defendant Korean Asset Trust.
[Recognizing the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8, and the grounds for filing a claim as to the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's employees asserted that the contract for the sale of this case was concluded with the plaintiff to the effect that "the occupants of the convenience store in the instant commercial building are fixed." The sales of the instant commercial building is guaranteed by high-profit (7-8.7% a year) in the process of concluding the contract for the sale of this case. If the sales of the instant commercial building was sold in lots, the plaintiff would allow other brand convenience stores to proceed with the contract for the sale of this case."
However, no convenience store, including the nishesaw, has been occupied in the commercial building of this case until now.
The Defendants asserted that those who recommended the Plaintiff to sell the goods are not employees of the Defendants, but employees of the sales agency who entered into a contract for sales agency with Defendant Franchising and selling the goods. However, the Plaintiffs are the Plaintiffs.