beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff transferred totaling KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on September 15, 2017 and twice a month on September 15, 2017.
(No. 6). 2. Plaintiff’s assertion
A. The Plaintiff lent the above KRW 10 million to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to repay the loan amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
B. If the Defendant’s return of the down payment due to nonperformance of obligation (preliminary claim) received the above KRW 10 million with the B lending sales contract deposit, the Defendant’s failure to perform the obligation to transfer ownership due to the sales contract after the discontinuance of B lending construction due to the cause attributable to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obliged to refund the down payment KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 2, 1, 1, and 2, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 240,000,000 of the purchase price of KRW 1,00,000,00 in the payment of the intermediate payment of KRW 80,000 upon the completion of the contract, and the payment of KRW 150,000 after the completion of the intermediate payment of KRW 80,000 in the payment of the intermediate payment of KRW 150,00,00 in the occupancy. ② The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to complete the registration of ownership transfer even if part of the intermediate payment is paid to the Plaintiff from January 2018, and ③ the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to conclude the registration of ownership transfer by paying the intermediate payment of KRW 150,000 in the part payment of the intermediate payment of KRW 2,40,000.
According to the above facts, 10 million won paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not a loan, but a contract for sale in lots, and since the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the contract for sale in lots because the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment and the balance, the first Plaintiff’s above arguments cannot be accepted on a different premise.
4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.