1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2003, the execution execution contract of the instant case concluded a district comprehensive construction (hereinafter “district comprehensive construction”) with respect to a reconstruction project that removes existing apartment houses located in Bupyeong-gu in Incheon (hereinafter “instant reconstruction association”) and constructs apartment houses of 170 units and 8 units of apartment houses of 2 units of Dong-gu and 170 units of the instant reconstruction project, the district comprehensive construction and the instant reconstruction association are the co-implementers of the instant reconstruction project, and the execution execution contract under which the district comprehensive construction is the contractor (hereinafter “instant execution execution execution contract”).

B. On August 27, 2004, the instant unit sale contract district construction and the instant rebuilding association entered into a joint agreement with the Defendant on the sale price of KRW 207,000,000 (hereinafter “instant unit sale contract”) for the sales price of KRW 79.3064 square meters among apartment buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On October 12, 2012, the comprehensive district construction in the instant assignment contract transferred the instant claim for the sale price to the Plaintiff, and the comprehensive district construction notified the Defendant of the assignment of the instant claim on October 15, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the lawsuit of this case seeking the payment on the ground that the plaintiff received the claim for the sale price of this case, the defendant asserts that the claim for the sale price of this case is a district comprehensive construction and the rebuilding association of this case's property, and that the lawsuit for the joint ownership of this case is an essential co-litigation, and it is unlawful because the plaintiff independently filed the lawsuit of this case, despite the fact that the plaintiff becomes a joint party.

The case shall be the case.