beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party B, C, and D are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff, in collusion with the Defendant and the Appointed, prepared a false lease agreement as if the Defendant were the lessee who was not the lessee of the instant real estate. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant et al. occupied the instant real estate, which was awarded a successful bid, without permission, and sought to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Defendant et al., and as to the Defendant et al., the Plaintiff et al. and the selected D, the Plaintiff would pay damages for unjust enrichment or tort equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 716,700 per month from February 16, 2013 (the day after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate)
2. Fact-finding and determination
A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7-1, 2, and 3, evidence Nos. 6, 7-2, and 3, evidence Nos. 5, witness E, and appraiser evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the results of this court's inquiries into G, the results of this court's financial transaction information inquiry into the following points: Gap evidence Nos. 8, Gap evidence No. 9, 10, 12, 13-1, each of the evidence Nos. 2, and witness evidence No. 2, each of the following evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are insufficient.
(1) On January 22, 2010, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the instant real estate owned by the Appointor D (the sale price of KRW 270 million) with the Appointor D, and paid the down payment of KRW 27 million to D.
However, the defendant becomes aware that a large amount of mortgage was established on the land in which the real estate in this case was located before the payment of intermediate payment, and the defendant changed the above sales contract to the buyer D to the lease contract.