beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From around 2009, the Plaintiff lent money to E. However, E prepared each letter of loan with the Plaintiff, KRW 180 million on August 1, 201, KRW 140 million on August 19, 201, KRW 20 million on August 26, 201, KRW 50 million on January 10, 201, and KRW 50 million on January 10, 201 (the name of the creditor was written in 2012, and the date was written in 20% in advance, interest at the time of default, KRW 3% in advance, and six months due.
B. E completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 12, 201 with respect to G and H of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 8, and the Defendants, E’ children, also have completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 12, 201. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3, under Defendant C’s name, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 201.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5-2, 6-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number unless the number has been otherwise specified; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the fact inquiry to Eul Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants, despite being aware of the fact that E is insolvent, purchased each of the instant officetels at the cost of E’s purchase. The Defendants entered into a sales contract with the Defendants as buyers, and each of the instant officetels listed in the separate, 2, and 3 list in the name of the Defendants (hereinafter “the instant officetels”).
The "Contract Title Trust Agreement" was concluded with the content of completing the registration of ownership transfer concerning the registration.
Accordingly, the defendants reduced the general property E for the purpose of evading compulsory execution in collusion with E, and concealed the money obtained by taking part in the fraudulent act of E, and the defendants are primarily liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.