beta
Text
1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has a claim for indemnity based on the subrogation amounting to KRW 1,423,271,755 in total against C Co., Ltd. (joint representative director B) and against B, a joint guarantor of credit guarantee agreement concluded on September 22, 2011 and April 18, 2014.
B. On May 5, 2015, the Defendant’s husband B concluded a sales contract with E as KRW 490,00,000 with respect to D apartment 201, 409, which was owned by the Defendant’s husband, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 8, 2015.
C. Meanwhile, on May 5, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the F-owned D Apartment 205, 205 as KRW 120,000,000 (monthly rent 1,200,000) as the lease deposit, and deposited KRW 30,000,000 in the name of the Defendant and KRW 80,000 in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s attached G’s attached KRW 80,00,000 in the name of the Defendant and KRW 80,000 in the name of the Defendant.
However, I concluded a lease contract with E as KRW 110,00,00 with respect to the above D Apartment 409 purchased by E in a pro-friendly relationship with E, around May 2015, and I would mutually substitute for KRW 110,000,000,000, which was refunded by the defendant who was a new lessee of the above D Apartment 205 and paid to E, and KRW 110,00,000,000, out of the purchase price to be paid by E.
E. Accordingly, H, a licensed real estate agent who arranged the above sale and lease contract, remitted KRW 100,000,000 out of the new lease deposit of KRW 110,000,000,000, which was transferred under the name of the Defendant and G, to the Amb Savings Co., Ltd. on May 8, 2015, and the remainder KRW 10,000,000 was remitted to F, a lessor on May 12, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 17, witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the main safety defense of this case is the main safety defense of this case, and the plaintiff is the above D apartment between E and B.