beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”) is the executor of C, an officetel constructed on the B and 2 lots of land in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant officetel”). The Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mosung Industry”) is the contractor of the said construction work. Around July 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a collective family loan agreement with the instant officetel sales.
B. According to the above loan agreement, the Plaintiff extended the intermediate payment to the buyer within the limit of 30% of the total sales price of the instant officetel (13,515,461,400 won) to the buyer within the limit of 60% of the usual sales price (Article 2), ② the loan executed is deposited into the deposit account designated by the large industry or the Co-owners (Article 3(2)), ③ the intermediate payment loan of the buyer is due to the cause corresponding to the loss of profit under the basic terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s bank credit transaction (Article 3(2)), and ③ the intermediate payment loan of the buyer, despite the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment of the loan to the buyer, if the buyer delayed the repayment, and Co., Ltd cancelled the sales contract with the buyer for recovery of the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the loan, and then appropriated the Plaintiff’s principal and interest to the buyer within three months of the down payment and the intermediate payment already paid by the buyer.
(Article 4). (c)
The Defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the instant officetels 1337 and 1039 units, and received an intermediate payment from the Plaintiff on November 4, 2002 in accordance with the above loan agreement. According to each loan transaction agreement prepared at that time, the amount of the loan is stated as KRW 51,40,000, respectively. The date of the loan commencement is stated as November 4, 2002, but the loan period and the expiration date is not specified.
However, in the plaintiff's internal document, the first maturity of the above loan was three years, and six months thereafter, and its maturity was extended.