beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 13, 2013, Defendant B, in writing, issued a promissory note as of March 14, 2013, with a face value of KRW 120 million, and the due date as of March 14, 2013. On the same day, C, with a promissory note No. 65 of 2013, in the event that a notary public delays the payment of a promissory note to a holder of a promissory note as of March 14, 2013, he/she prepared and issued a notarized deed to the effect that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. Defendant B entered into a lease agreement between Defendant B and D, etc., and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement that leases the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) On March 26, 2013, as Seoul Southern District Court 2013TTTT No. 20165, C applied for a seizure and collection order as to KRW 120 million among the lease deposit refund claims under the said lease agreement with Defendant D based on the instant promissory note No. 20165, and received a seizure and collection order from the above court on April 3, 2013 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). The said order was served to D on April 10, 2013.
C. On January 19, 2016, the Defendant Kubex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant apartment from D with the purchase price of KRW 890,000,000, and succeeded to the obligation to refund the lease deposit to Defendant B by completing the registration of ownership transfer under its name on February 23, 2016.
(1) On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kadan21850 decided Jun. 5, 2015 (Seoul Southern District Court 2015Ma21850); (b) C received the claim for the return of the lease deposit amount equivalent to KRW 120 million payable from D based on the seizure and collection order in this case; and (c) against D, the instant apartment house was transferred from Defendant B.