2013Gahap1693 Sales Price

Manaco Co., Ltd.

A Regional Housing Association

November 21, 2014

December 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 530,000,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Defendant was the implementer of a new apartment construction project in B, B,397 square meters, C, C, 1,236 square meters, and D, 598 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “real estate in this case”), and E (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”) was the Defendant’s cooperative agent, and F is the representative director of the non-party company.

(2) From around 2005, F planned to implement a multi-family housing construction project in G G at the same time, including the instant real estate, and promoted this project at H Co., Ltd., which was a joint representative director, and transferred the said project to the future S.D. (hereinafter “S.S.”) around 2006 during the period of purchasing the said land, etc., and thereafter transferred the re-project right to the non-party company around 2008.

B. The plaintiff and the non-party company's monetary loan contract and F's joint and several guarantee

On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the non-party company to lend KRW 500,000,000 to the non-party company as of July 31, 2010, and paid KRW 500,000 to the non-party company on the same day, and the non-party company jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations owed to the plaintiff by the non-party company.

C. The transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant F

(1) The F entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant real estate in KRW 530,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). In the column for the special agreement of the instant sales contract, the F entered into the sales contract as “payment of the purchase price at the time of cancellation of mortgage, provisional registration, and trust registration” in the register.

(2) On July 6, 2011, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant.

D. Conclusion and termination of business transfer contracts between the defendant and the non-party company

(1) On January 2010, the defendant entered into a business license agreement (A) agreement with the non-party company to take over the construction project, such as multi-family housing, which the non-party company promoted in the G company in the G company in the large city. On May 2011, the non-party company entered into a business license agreement (hereinafter referred to as "business license agreement") with the non-party company on a regular basis to take over the business rights of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "the project of this case"). The main contents of the contract are to transfer all the rights related to the project of this case, such as the right to purchase, design, authorization, permission, civil petition processing, civil petition processing, and consultation with the non-party company. In return, the defendant paid the non-party company the non-party company the cost of transfer of business rights, the cost of business operation, the cost of sales, the cost of sales, the cost of sales, the cost of sales, etc.

(2) On November 7, 2011, the Defendant notified the non-party company of the cancellation of the contract on the ground that the non-party company committed an act that was objectively difficult to perform its duties due to the non-party company’s breach of significant obligations on the transfer of business in the instant contract. On January 10, 2012, the Defendant agreed with the Defendant on the cancellation of the transfer of business in the instant case between the non-party company and the non-party company, waives all rights under the said contract, and hand over all relevant documents by arranging the Defendant’s accounts as of the time of the contract ( May 201), and if the conditions for resolving claims and obligations related to the non-party company and various civil affairs are satisfied, the Defendant shall pay KRW 3 billion to the non-party company by agreement, including the transfer of agency expenses and the transfer of business rights.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) On July 6, 201, pursuant to the instant sales contract, F had the Defendant completed the transfer registration of ownership of the instant real estate, but the Defendant did not pay F the purchase price of KRW 530,000,000.

(B) The Plaintiff, as a creditor of F, sought payment of the above purchase price on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of F.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant paid the non-party company’s debt by subrogation to the non-party company, thereby fulfilling the obligation to pay the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract to F.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 3, the non-party company already acquired at the time of entering into the business transfer contract between the defendant and the non-party company shall directly purchase the non-party company and receive ownership transfer, and the remainder of the business site shall be directly purchased by the defendant, but the non-party company decided to act on behalf of the non-party company

The owners of the land which is the project site were 00,00 won and 15,670,000 won and 1,380,000 won and 1,380,000 won and 1,380,000 won and 2,230,000,000 won and 00,000 won and 00,000 won and 00,000 won and 20,000 won and 00,000 won and 00,000 won and 20,000 won and 0,000 won and 00,00 won and 1,00,00 won and 30,00 won and 60,00 won and 00,00 won and 00,00 won and 20,000 won and 60,000 won and 200,00 won and 10,000 won and 70,01,01.

The following facts revealed in the above facts and the facts recognized as above, namely, the non-party company's real estate owned by the non-party company was used as real estate because the non-party company was provided as collateral or sold for the business operation of the non-party company, and the special terms and conditions of the contract of this case are as follows: if the non-party company pays its debts and cancels the mortgage on the business site of this case including the real estate of this case, the defendant gains profits in the business expenses, and thus the defendant bears the obligation to pay the balance separately. If it is not so, the defendant bears the obligation to pay the balance, instead of taking over its debts against the first beneficiary, it is interpreted that the defendant's obligation to

Although I, J, etc. actually paid the amount equivalent to the amount of money set out in the instant project site. However, the representative director, F, F, and F, a partner company, did not directly pay the purchase price to P, F, and F, in addition to the payment of KRW 100,000 to F, F, and F, the non-party company agreed to terminate the instant contract for the transfer of business between the Defendant on January 10, 2012 and to waive all rights under the said contract and agreed to pay KRW 3,00,000,000. Thus, the transaction relation between the parties to the instant real estate included in the subject of the said contract was terminated due to the said settlement agreement, and F, upon completing the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant, urged the Defendant to pay the balance to the Defendant until three years after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, or requested the seller to provide security to secure the payment, etc., and in view of the fact that F, a representative director, who did not exercise rights to the instant contract for the transfer of the real estate, the interest of the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-dae

Judges Lee Jae-sung

Judges Lee Jae-he