beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 500,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from January 1, 2012 to June 29, 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic factual basis within the scope necessary to determine the cause of the claim;
A. A, INC. (hereinafter “A”), around 2006 and around 2007, the instant lease right in relation to the Philippines B and C (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) located in SUBIC BY, MTTRIT, AUTRTRITY (hereinafter “SBMA”), which was transferred from BOTN LIGHE CR PA PAK, and INC (hereinafter “BSP”).
(hereinafter “instant lease transfer contract”). (b)
With respect to the so-called “D Project” that constructs and sells apartment and commercial buildings on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant development project”), A (ownership) entered into a loan and business agreement on April 15, 2008 on the position of a contractor and a borrower as a contractor and a contractor as a contractor, and the Defendant entered into a loan and business agreement on April 15, 2008 as a lender.
(W) Contents No. 16-1, 2, c.
On April 23, 2008, the Defendant loaned KRW 29.25 billion to A (I) for the purpose of the development project fund of this case in accordance with the above loan and business agreement.
(Berne PF loans). (d)
On June 29, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant on the instant loan claim (29,249,521,914 won) of the Defendant’s (unrepaid principal), provisional payment, and security rights thereto, with the content that the Plaintiff purchased 6,537,341,413 won.
(See Evidence No. 3). (e) Contents set forth in subparagraph A.
The Plaintiff paid the purchase price of this case to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 3, 16, 28-31, and Eul No. 36
2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the key issue Plaintiff first sought the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the refund of the sales price (payment) on the grounds that the instant sales contract was concluded due to the Defendant’s deception.
. Specific deception.