beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In relation to the status of the parties, the Plaintiff was the owner of 13 sites such as Thai City D and 10 hotel buildings attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hotel,” referred to as the “instant hotel,” and its detailed details are the same as the attached list). Defendant C is a certified judicial scrivener who operates the F Judicial scrivener Office, and Defendant B is the head of the above certified judicial scrivener office.
B. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty G to exchange each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1 to 6] list No. 1 to 6 owned by the Plaintiff with Nonparty G, 1, 4, 5, and 3,00,000, and 3,000,000, and (2) as of the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty K to exchange each real estate listed in the [Attachment 7 and 8] list No. 7 and 8 owned by the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff with the lease deposit, facility, and key money, etc. of the 1st, Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “Seoul-si Real Estate”), and on the same day, between Nonparty N and the Plaintiff on April 26, 2013, which held the real estate listed in the [Attachment 9] list No.9 owned by the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff for the right to claim the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. Since the process of the transfer of ownership of the instant hotel, the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6 among the instant hotel is due to the exchange on July 12, 2013, and each registration of ownership transfer was completed to G on the 31st of the same month, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 7 and 8 is due to the exchange on July 12, 2013, and each registration of ownership transfer has been completed to K on the 31st of the same month, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 9 was completed on July 12, 2013.
On the other hand, each real estate listed in the table 10 and 11, which was excluded from the subject of the exchange contract among the hotel of this case, is the same as the final judgment on January 29, 2015.