beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant loan”) from Defendant B from Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for KRW 365 million, but paid the down payment on the date of the contract, and entered into a sales contract with the effect that the remainder of KRW 315 million shall be paid at the time of cancellation of provisional attachment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant B the down payment of KRW 50 million out of the remainder of the down payment and KRW 15 million.
B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the registration of seizure, D, and provisional seizure in the name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was completed, respectively, at the time of the instant sales contract, and the said registration was revoked on December 4, 2014, and the provisional seizure registration was revoked on March 4, 2015.
C. However, on September 30, 201, Defendant B leased the instant loan to Defendant C with a deposit of KRW 300 million, the lease period from November 30, 201 to November 29, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). Defendant C filed a move-in report at that time and obtained a fixed date on December 5, 201, and completed the lease registration with the leasehold on July 17, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan95).
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant B on the claim for ownership transfer registration of the instant loan, and “Defendant B received KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff, at the same time, paid the Plaintiff KRW 300 million, and the Plaintiff performed the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the instant sales contract.”
(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Na32383 Decided November 11, 2016, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da271240 Decided March 9, 2017).
On the other hand, Defendant C also claimed the termination of the instant lease agreement against Defendant C and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit. On December 6, 2017, Defendant B received the instant loan from Defendant C.