beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the sales right from the Defendant to the commercial buildings located in Seosung City Co (hereinafter “instant sales right”) at KRW 50 million in the purchase price. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40 million in the purchase price to the account in the name of the Defendant.
B. However, the defendant is not a member to whom the right of sale in this case is recognized, and the plaintiff cancels the sale contract for the above right for sale in this case on the ground of the defendant's impossibility of performance, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 40 million and the delay damages
C. In addition, since the defendant lent the name to E conducting business in the name of "D", it shall be held liable as the nominal lender in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including evidence with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings is that Eul borrowed the defendant's name and operated a golf product store of "D", "D", and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the above number of tickets from Eul with the plaintiff who operated "D" with the plaintiff who operated the friendly job offering. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the above number of tickets with the plaintiff as KRW 50 million with the purchase price as well as E and the defendant on May 30, 208. The plaintiff and the defendant first met with the real estate agent at the time of the preparation of the sales contract for the right to purchase the above number of tickets. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the sales contract was made up between the defendant and the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant have the right to purchase the above number of tickets with the plaintiff's business operator "D," and it can be recognized that the plaintiff is a "D's actual right to purchase."