beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph (1).
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning the judgment on the conjunctive claim of the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is brought to the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is in accordance with the main sentence of
[Supplementary Use]
B. The facts that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D on May 12, 2006 for each of the instant real estate and thereafter paid KRW 200 million out of KRW 372,060,000 for purchase price, and the Defendant paid KRW 172,060,000 for each of the instant real estate around July 20, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name for each of the instant real estate around that time.
However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the testimony of witness Eul of the court of first instance, the plaintiff agreed to acquire all kinds of rights, including the purchaser's status, as to the site for the new apartment construction project, around April 2006, including each of the real estate of this case, between B (actual operator G) and Eul, and paid part of the purchase price, but did not pay any balance thereafter. The plaintiff paid the balance of the purchase price to Eul because the financial circumstance at the time is not good, so that the plaintiff would complete the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the real estate of this case. The plaintiff raised funds later, the actual operator of Eul and the defendant's representative director who are the defendant's representative director, and dealt with the issue of transfer of ownership of each of the real estate of this case and payment of balance under the above acquisition contract of this case. In light of this, it is difficult to find otherwise that the defendant, without any legal ground, obtained some profits of the purchase price of this case.