beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows: “from May 30, 2015 to the time the real estate recorded in the separate sheet, which is the remaining land of the instant real estate, is sold” among the face 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance; “from May 30, 2015 to the time when the Defendant Company loses its ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet”; “The part 8-9” is as stated in the part 8-9; and “the part 2. height” is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “the following 3. additional determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendants in this court, it is identical to the
2. On June 23, 2015, J filed a lawsuit seeking the return of KRW 80 million due to the cancellation of the contract, on the premise that the sales contract for the instant real estate concluded with the Defendant Company and the Preliminary Defendant J concluded with the Defendant Company and the Preliminary Defendant on March 2, 2005, which entered into with the Defendant Company and the J around October 2005.
In the above case, H brought a lawsuit against the Defendant Company as it is difficult to confirm who is the party to the above contract on March 2, 2005 regarding the instant real estate. However, if J recognizes the fact that it is the party to the above contract, H stated that he would withdraw the lawsuit against the Defendant Company. The J stated that the sales contract of March 2, 2005, prepared in the name of the Defendant Company, was in form prepared in order to guarantee the return of the sales price paid by H pursuant to the contract of June 30, 2004 between J and H, and that the party to the sales contract between H was the party to the sales contract.
Ultimately, the Defendant Company’s claim against H against the Defendant Company was dismissed as it is deemed not a party to the above sales contract, and its claim against J was partially accepted (Scheon District Court Decision 2015Gahap6360 decided December 8, 2016), and the part against the Defendant Company among the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 30, 2016.
. The above.