beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Ssung Housing Co., Ltd. to jointly construct and sell the apartment houses with 27 households on the land outside of C and 8 in Syang-si. The shares of both parties are 50%, and the Plaintiff decided to invest KRW 20 million in the housing unit and KRW 70 million in the housing unit.
B. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase D Large 139 square meters for the said business, and paid 14 million won in total as the down payment and the intermediate payment. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract with E architect office and the service payment of KRW 42 million, and paid KRW 15 million as the down payment. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase C Large 387 square meters for KRW 400,000 and paid KRW 20,182,00 as part of the down payment. On the same day, the Plaintiff continued to enter into a contract to purchase KRW 68,000,000 for KRW 180,500,000,000,000 for KRW 68,000,000 for the same day.
C. Meanwhile, on May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a joint investment agreement with the Defendant for the purpose of the said housing construction project on May 2, 2015 with the aim of sharing KRW 200 million that he/she intended to make an equity investment of KRW 100 million each, invest the Defendant’s equity interest, distribute the profits half of the profits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant investment agreement”). D.
However, as the defendant thought that the profitability of the above business is uncertain, he notified that he would withdraw from the investment agreement of this case around May 6, 2015, which is the date of the agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including additional number), witness F's witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendant did not pay the investment amount in violation of the instant investment agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff have a scarcity.