beta
Text
1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),
A. As to Boan-si E 1,002 square meters, Defendant C shall be deemed to have been registered with the Daejeon District Court, and Defendant C shall be deemed to have been registered with the Daejeon District Court.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant D is a person who was the representative of the Plaintiff from July 1, 2012 to December 29, 2012.
B. On July 30, 2012, Defendant D, as the Plaintiff’s representative, entered into a sales contract where the Plaintiff and Defendant C sell the instant real estate for KRW 45,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant first sales contract”) with the said Defendant, by using a forged resolution as seen supra, and as the Plaintiff’s representative, sold the instant real estate for KRW 45,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant first sales contract”).
Defendant C paid the above purchase price of KRW 45,000,000 to Defendant D around that time.
3) According to the instant contract for the first sale of the real estate, the registration of transfer of the ownership in the name of the Defendant C was completed as of August 17, 2012, the Daejeon District Court Boan Branch of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul Branch of the Republic of Korea) No. 19948, Oct. 26, 2012. 4) Defendant C entered into a loan agreement between the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea and the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea to borrow KRW 210,00,000 from the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, and completed the registration of creation of superficies as of October 26, 2012 under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of securing the said loan obligation under the name of the Daejeon District Court of Boan Branch of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul Branch of the Republic of Korea) No. 25277, Oct. 26, 2012.
C. While Defendant D did not adopt a general meeting resolution with respect to the Plaintiff’s sale of the instant real estate, as if the Plaintiff had made the said resolution at the general meeting on August 27, 2012, around August 27, 2012, the general meeting resolution in the name of the Plaintiff was forged. 2) Defendant D used the forged resolution at around August 27, 2012.