beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 20, 2010, Nonparty G is the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) whose representative director is Nonparty G on September 20, 2010.
(D) multi-household housing (hereinafter referred to as “multi-household housing”) on the land of ASEAN and ASEAN.
B) The construction contract was concluded to newly construct the construction cost of KRW 630,000,000 (excluding value-added tax). 2) E had to transfer ownership of two rooms (203 & 504) and part of the multi-household houses in D, in which H, an ASEAN, was constructed, and to substitute the payment for the said construction contract. 3) F began to construct D multi-household houses around October 2010.
B. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff and F’s subcontract for construction work, and F, subcontracted the structural construction to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax) among D multi-household new construction works. 2) F decided to substitute for the payment of the construction cost by transferring the right to sell the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff under 203 and 504 that F would receive from E as a substitute for the said construction cost.
At the time Itel 203, the purchase price of the Itel 203 is KRW 74 million, and the sale price of KRW 504 is recognized as KRW 76 million.
3) On September 2012, the Plaintiff completed the framework construction of D multi-household housing, and around that time, the construction of D multi-household housing has been completed, and registration of ownership preservation in the name of E has been completed. C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s promise to sell and purchase 1) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff to transfer ownership of D multi-household housing 102 instead of Itel 203, as F did not transfer ownership to the Plaintiff until January 2013, 2013.
2) In accordance with the above amendment agreement, the Plaintiff transferred the right to sell the Itel 203 around January 4, 2013 to the Defendant (formerly, corporation L), and instead, the Defendant owns the ownership of D multi-household 102.