beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Under the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap8657 against the Plaintiff’s Housing Redevelopment Association (hereinafter “the instant association”), the Plaintiff’s claim against the instant association was sentenced to the Plaintiff’s 363,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s 20% interest per annum from August 27, 2011 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s Housing Redevelopment Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) was finalized around that time. The Plaintiff Company received the Plaintiff’s payment order in addition to the amount of KRW 574,864,920 and the amount of KRW 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. This became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The instant association and Defendant D newly built commercial buildings in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the sales contract. Defendant D, a member of the instant association, concluded a sales contract with the instant association and the said commercial building 103 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
C. 1) The instant association filed a lawsuit against Defendant D for the claim for the sale price of commercial buildings by asserting that Defendant D did not pay the balance of the sale price of the instant commercial building, and Defendant D appealed appealed against the said judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga87414, Apr. 24, 2012) that the instant association shall pay 17% per annum from October 25, 2006 to October 27, 201 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap87414, Apr. 24, 2012) to the effect that the instant association shall continue to exist in the appellate trial (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na43955, Feb. 13, 2013).
(At the time, the representative of the instant association was the defendant C). (No dispute over the grounds for recognition exists.)