beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted each real estate indicated in the separate sheet with the Defendant on March 8, 2012 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
(2) The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on March 8, 2012 with the sales price of KRW 1.4 billion, the intermediate payment of KRW 1.4 billion, the remainder payment of KRW 900 million, and the intermediate payment of KRW 600 million as a collateral for each of the instant real estate, and concluded a sales contract with the intention to transfer the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate at the same time as the intermediate payment was paid. The Plaintiff received the down payment and the intermediate payment from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate, but the Defendant did not pay the remainder to the Defendant, but the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder amount of KRW 900 million under the said sales contract to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on March 8, 2012 with the purchase price of each of the instant real estate as KRW 700 million, and the remainder amount of KRW 600 million was paid on April 4, 2012.
However, the Plaintiff, under the name of the Defendant, forged a sales contract of KRW 1.4 billion with respect to each of the instant real estate, and accordingly claims the Defendant for the payment of the remaining purchase price. The Defendant is not liable to pay the remaining purchase price to the Plaintiff.
B. On the other hand, as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a sales contract) is written in Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, the inquiry results of this court's CMyeon Office, and the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the tax information reply of this court's submission of the tax information letter on Suwon tax revenue sources, namely, the defendant's name entered in Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) in the buyer's column