logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.05 2014가합205689
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Co-investment agreement C and D shall agree to make a joint investment with the following matters in order to purchase real estate and engage in rental business, and shall comply with it in good faith under the principle of good faith:

(1) Object of investment: Part of the building in this case (2) The funding C and D shall jointly borrow funds from financial institutions.

Provided, That the borrower shall be C and D shall provide security in the form of security.

(3) In principle, common ownership is held, but C shall own 2, 3, and 4 underground and 202 above ground, and D shall own 1 underground and 108 above ground.

(4) A real estate lease shall be conducted in consultation with each other, and a lease contract prepared without consultation shall be null and void.

(5) The bank shall settle its funds and other expenses (including taxes and public charges) monthly from the income from the lease of earnings allocated to 5:5.

(6) Basic management of real estate and other tax reports, etc. arising from such real estate management shall be made under the responsibility of C.

(7) The sale of real estate may be agreed upon at the time a reason for the sale of real estate occurs, and loans borrowed from financial institutions shall be repaid in full.

(8) The real estate subject to prohibition on resale shall be managed jointly, and shall not be resold to another person without agreement.

In around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a joint investment agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s wife C and the Defendant’s wife, with respect to the building’s Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the ground Nos. 108 and 202 (hereinafter “the instant building portion”) under the name of the Plaintiff’s wife C and the Defendant’s wife, as follows:

The Plaintiff and the Defendant stated in the instant agreement the investment ratio of 50:50, but actually agreed that the Plaintiff shall invest 80% and 20% of the Defendant’s investment.

On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building portion and its site ownership portion of KRW 1,280,000,000 from the F and two others.

C It is not more than u Mutual Savings Banks, Inc. on January 9, 2007.

arrow