beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant Dokdong Co., Ltd shall be revoked.
2. Defendant among the instant lawsuits.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 28, 2008, a reconstruction association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a reconstruction association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) concluded a construction contract in the form of fixed shares (hereinafter “the construction contract in this case”) with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and “The instant association offered land outside Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and six parcels of land owned by it, and supply 22 households of the instant association as the price for the instant association’s provision of land by inserting business expenses (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff, a sales agent of the instant apartment, entered into a sales contract for the instant apartment as to June 1, 2009, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 290 million for the sales price of KRW 506,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 20,000 for the first intermediate payment of KRW 35,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 100,000 for the second intermediate payment of KRW 10,000 for the second intermediate payment of KRW 5,00 on June 3, 2009, and the remainder of KRW 135,00,000 for the scheduled date of occupancy” (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
D On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff confirmed that “D received KRW 1550 million from the Plaintiff as the down payment and the intermediate payment under the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff took over the existing intermediate payment loan obligations of the Bank regarding subparagraph 506 of the instant case in lieu of the payment of KRW 100 million out of the remainder, and settled the remainder of KRW 35 million in relation to the sales commission.”
In addition, on November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff who was the title holder of the instant loan No. 506 and the final buyer of the instant case No. 506, and when the Plaintiff acquires the ownership of the instant No. 506, the Plaintiff will take over the intermediate payment loan obligation of H.