beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s promise to sell and purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet against Defendant B on September 12, 2003.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 4, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to Defendant C. The Defendant C repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 on July 20, 201, ② KRW 1,000,000 on August 10, 201, ③ KRW 1,000,000 on August 24, 201, and KRW 1,000,000 on August 24, 201, via the Defendant C’s deposit account, Defendant C’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,00 on December 20, 2012.
B. Each of the instant real estate was owned by Defendant C, but the relationship of rights was changed as follows.
On June 12, 2001, No. 30716, Apr. 25, 2001, the provisional registration of the trade owner’s right to claim for transfer of ownership on Nov. 11, 2003, No. 71554, Sept. 12, 2003, No. 47652, Sept. 3, 2012, the trade owner B, No. 30716, Jun. 12, 2001, No. 30716, Apr. 25, 2001, B, the trade owner’s right to claim transfer of ownership on Sept. 3, 201, B, 207, No. 30716, Nov. 154, 2003, B, the owner of the right to claim transfer of ownership on Sept. 23, 201, B, 2005.
C. The balance of loans to Defendant C by the member credit cooperative was KRW 81,00,000 as of September 3, 2012, and at the time Defendant C had no assets except each of the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the result of each fact inquiry to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court, the result of the fact inquiry to the head of Gosung Agricultural Cooperative, the purport of the whole arguments
2. The obligee's right of revocation shall be exercised within one year from the date on which he becomes aware of the cause of revocation, or within five years from the date on which a juristic act has been committed.
(Article 406(2) of the Civil Act. The fact that the promise to sell and purchase the instant case was entered into on September 12, 2003 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was brought on June 9, 2015, which was after the lapse of the exclusion period of five years from the lawsuit. Thus, the Defendants’ main defense that points this out is with merit.