beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly set forth in the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000 and as to the Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is from April 25, 2015 to August 25, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, the father of Defendant B, was awarded a successful bid for Yangyang-gun E Apartment 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from Defendant C, the father of Defendant B, and sought an explanation that an immediate occupancy is possible, and on April 16, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million between Defendant C and Defendant C, who represented Defendant B, with respect to the instant apartment on April 16, 2014. The lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million and the down payment of KRW 117 million shall be paid on April 25, 2014, and the lease term shall be from April 25, 2014 to April 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The lease contract was concluded between April 25, 2014 to April 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The contract deposit amount of KRW 13 million was paid by offsetting Defendant C with the construction price claim against Defendant C.
B. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan with the Korean bank, Defendant B, present at the second location via the Korean bank, and submitted to the Korean bank a written signature on the “written confirmation of the lease contract” to confirm the fact that the instant lease contract was concluded.
C. Defendant C requested that the Plaintiff pay KRW 77 million out of the lease deposit received from the Plaintiff to the Defendant B’s account, on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to deliver the apartment in this case due to the circumstance of the person residing in the apartment in this case. The Plaintiff believed that it was part of the remainder of the construction to put the apartment in the B without a mold.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit, as the Defendants did not deliver the instant apartment.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, Defendant C could not deliver the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff as if it were possible to deliver it to the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, and amounting to KRW 90,000,000 from the Plaintiff.