beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2006, E leased from the Korea National Housing Corporation (the Korea Land and Housing Corporation was merged with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on October 1, 2009; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) which is a rental business operator, Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Rental Housing Act and Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 27, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act”), the F block G, which is a publicly constructed rental house under Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment house”).
B. On June 1, 2006, E transferred the right to lease and the right to return the lease deposit (hereinafter “the right to lease of this case”) to Defendant C without the consent of Nonparty C. On July 1, 2009, C re-transfer the right to lease of this case to K, L, and M (hereinafter “M, etc.”) operating a real estate agent J as of July 1, 2009, and M, etc. entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the right to lease of this case without the consent of Nonparty C Corporation (hereinafter “the contract of this case”). On July 24, 2006, M, etc. was paid KRW 200,000,000 on condition that the instant apartment was converted for sale from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff acquired its ownership.
C. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the apartment owned by the Plaintiff to N as a broker of M in KRW 670,000,000, and M directly received the above sales amount from N, and subsequently, after deducting KRW 130,000 from the aforementioned sales amount as part of the Fristium, paid the remainder of KRW 540,00,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The instant contract with Defendant B does not constitute an exception under the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act without the consent of Nonparty Corporation and does not constitute an exception under the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act. Therefore, in relation to Nonparty B, a rental business operator.