beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 21, 2014 to October 28, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's ground of claim
A. The Plaintiff owned a Ri E forest land 398 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) such as the 26/873 square meters in the name of Leecheon-si D forest land 873 square meters in the name of Leecheon-si.
The Defendant owned a commercial building No. 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) on the ground of two lots, F in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and the 201 commercial building on the ground of two lots.
B. On July 6, 2007, the Defendant entered into a contract with I through his agent to exchange the instant G building commercial buildings and 1200/227283 square meters out of the 227,283 square meters of K forest land in Ansan-si owned by J (hereinafter “instant land”).
Afterward, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land in Ansan City.
Before the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to the instant G building building building, I established a collateral (hereinafter “mortgage”) with the consent of the Defendant regarding the instant G building building, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, and used the said collateral (hereinafter “mortgage”).
The Defendant, on behalf of I, demanded I to pay the said money after discharging the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security.
C. Among them, I suggested to the Plaintiff the exchange between the instant land in Echeon-si and the instant G buildings.
However, after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of Leecheon-si owned by the Plaintiff first, the Defendant’s agent completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case, and then the registration of transfer of ownership was subsequently defective.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of Leecheon-si in the future of the Defendant.
For more than one year, the Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff that the land subject to exchange should be changed to the transfer of the instant land instead of the instant G building, and the Plaintiff consented thereto.
Accordingly, it is between the plaintiff and the defendant in June 2008.