beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B expanded by this court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) On the ground of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul around 2002, the Plaintiff is a single aggregate building of 16 households on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).
(i)one aggregate building of 16 households (hereinafter referred to as "consecting building") on and on the ground of the office;
(2) Defendant B entered into an agreement with the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 19, 2002, with the creditor or construction business owner as the owner of each household, on which the construction permit was granted by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. Defendant B, as of August 26, 2003, invested KRW 360,000 in the new construction business of the instant building and the neighboring building; and N, up to February 27, 2004, with the total of KRW 252,00,000,000 as the principal added up to the investment principal until February 27, 2004, with the total of KRW 612,00,000,000 as the principal of the investment principal and the profits added up to the investment principal and the profits added up to the amount of KRW 5% per month when delay is made.
(See Evidence B) In accordance with the above Investment Convention, Defendant B invested the total amount of KRW 360,00,000,000 in the investment principal from Defendant B, K, and P’s account in the name of Dong Q, around September 3, 2003.
3) Around that time, N shall invest KRW 400,00,00 for the new construction project of the instant building, etc., and it shall receive KRW 800,000,000 in total of the investment principal and the profits determined by the Plaintiff as 100% of the principal until February 28, 2004 from the Plaintiff, and if delay, it shall be paid 10,000,000 per month for the investment principal and profits. The Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with six households of the instant aggregate building newly constructed by the Plaintiff as collateral (see evidence 7. 4) with the content that the new construction project of the instant building and the adjacent building was interrupted on several occasions due to the shortage of construction funds. The Plaintiff around March 28, 2005.