beta
Text
1. The Defendant purchased the Plaintiff, in the name of the Plaintiff, in relation to Daegu-gu C Apartment 217 Dong 1901.
Reasons
1. On October 18, 2013, the fact that the Defendant entered into a sales contract with Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and the Defendant to purchase the supply price of the Daegu-gu C Apartment 217 dong 1901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the said company at KRW 254,90,000 does not conflict between the parties.
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff comprehensively acquired the rights and obligations of the purchaser under the sales contract of the above right to sell the apartment of this case from D who purchased the right to sell the apartment of this case from D, and that the plaintiff also approved it, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to change the purchaser's name to the plaintiff as to the apartment of this case.
In this regard, the Defendant alleged that, on the instant apartment sale right, the Plaintiff requested brokerage on the condition that the buyer for real residence is introduced to E, a licensed real estate agent, but did not sell the instant apartment sale right to D or the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff did not approve the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the rights and obligations against D.
B. Determination 1) A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-2, 6-1, 7-1 through 3, 7-1, 5-3, 7-2, and 2-1, 7-1, 1-2, and 2-3 of the evidence Nos. 1, and the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the witness F’s testimony, the fact inquiry results, and the purport of the whole pleadings to the 1-dong, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, and the 1-dong, 2013. A) The Defendant won the winning in the apartment sale of the instant apartment around October 15, 2013, and requested E licensed real estate agents to resell the apartment sale right of the instant apartment.
B) D’s brokerage of a licensed real estate agent F, expressed that the instant apartment sales right from the Defendant was KRW 24,000,000 (the Plaintiff expressed that the said money was the “shared money” but this appears to be the price for the purchase of the sales right in substance, and hereinafter “price for the sales right”).
(b).