logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가합503604
합의서 무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. C detached houses concluded on November 12, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s promotion of a project for the sale of detached houses has promoted the project (hereinafter “instant project”) that newly constructs and sells 68 households of detached houses on the land outside and outside 22 parcels of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, 2009 (hereinafter “C detached Housing Construction Project”; hereinafter “instant project”); and hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff received loans from E Co., Ltd. in KRW 5 billion, KRW 4 billion from F Co., Ltd., and KRW 3 billion from G Co., Ltd. for the purpose of raising the project cost of the instant project (hereinafter “instant loan agreement” or “instant loan agreement”); on the other hand, the said financial institutions are collectively referred to as “alternatives,” and where they are individually named, the part of “stock Co., Ltd.” among their trade names is omitted.

(2) The instant loan agreement concluded a real estate security trust agreement with a trust company designated by the lender, and had the trust company deliver to the lender a certificate of priority interest (the amount of priority interest: 130% of each loan agreement) in accordance with the security trust.

Accordingly, on May 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) on the instant business site as real estate regardless of whether it was before or after the change, and entered into a contract with I, E, and F on May 6, 201 with the lender as priority beneficiary (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”).

3) After doing the instant business, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 6,975,80,000 to the lender with the revenue accrued from the sale of 41 households of a detached house, and even among them, the Plaintiff repaid the entire debt to G.

arrow