In order to make the erroneous payment of tax to become an unjust enrichment, there shall be no legal grounds, or the defect of the tax disposition shall be null and void as it is significant and apparent.

In order to make an unjust enrichment, the tax payment or the collection of tax shall be null and void as there is no legal basis at all under substantive or procedural law or the defect of the tax assessment is significant and apparent.

Article 741 (Unjustifiable Profit) of the Civil Act

2014 Gohap19702 Return, etc. of unjust enrichment

Materials of Grounds

The Republic of Korea and four others

December 26, 2014

oly 201.21

1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the plaintiff 106,159,820 won with 5% interest per annum from July 21, 2008 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The defendant 00 shall perform the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as of the real estate stated in the attached Table 1, which was completed by the Suwon District Court No. 74103 on May 11, 2007, and shall pay 10,000,000 won per annum from July 21, 2008 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1) In the second written argument of this case, the plaintiff's agent sought monetary payment against "Defendant 2, 3, and 4."

Although the supplementary statement is written, it is a clerical error in Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, the non-party 00, the 00, and the 00 (hereinafter referred to as "each seller of this case") are the defendant 1 to the maximum of 00.

The assistant intervenor Kim 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor joining the defendant Kim 00") and the mediation of defendant No. 00

On December 14, 2006, Kim 00 and two others (the subsequent buyer is the intervenor joining the defendant Kim 00, the defendant Choi 00, the lawsuit

The real estate (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of this case, owned by each seller of this case, is sold for KRW 1.6 billion, and the down payment of KRW 160 million was concluded on January 12, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 800 million was paid on February 13, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") with the content that each real estate of this case as listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of this case, owned by each seller of this case, shall be sold for KRW 1.6 billion, and the down payment of KRW 160 million was received on the same day according to the above contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 (including branch numbers for those with various numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As to the main defense of Defendant No. 00, Maximum 00, 100

1) Summary of the assertion by Defendant No. 00, Maximum 00, 100

① On September 12, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap77322 rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff against Defendant Noh 00 and the maximum 000, and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff.

The appellate court also has received a judgment of dismissal, and is still pending in the final appeal, and the appellate court has filed the lawsuit of this case with the same content as the above lawsuit, despite the fact that the lawsuit of damages, etc. was pending on September 5, 2013 by the above court 2013Ga6686, which was filed on September 5, 2013. Thus, the lawsuit of this case against the above Defendants is unlawful because it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit.

2) Determination

A) The facts of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit against Defendant No. 00, Choi 00, and Han 00 on April 111, 2014 are clear in the record. It is clear in the record that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit against Defendant No. 1, 2, 35, and 36 were included in the evidence No. Ra

In full view of the purport of the body, at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, ① the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant 00 on September 12, 2012, seeking damages equivalent to KRW 53,300,000,000, which is part of the damages, under the premise that the said maximum 00 was not a party to the instant contract, by forging documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer; ② the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against Defendant 60,000, under the premise that the lower court’s judgment against the Plaintiff’s breach of duty under Article 12374 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and the Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”) against the Plaintiff on the premise that the said lawsuit had been filed for damages equivalent to KRW 14,7322, etc. due to nonperformance of obligation under Article 201 of the former Certified Real Estate Act.

Facts that have been pending are recognized respectively.

2) Of the amount of KRW 90,000,000, which the Defendant’s assistant intervenor Kim0 and Defendant No. 00 received as a brokerage commission, the amount of KRW 75,60,000 was compensated by the final and conclusive judgment of the claim for the refund of brokerage commission (U.S. District Court 2009Da39987, No. 2009Na37050, supra).

B) However, according to the above facts of recognition, the cases related to Nos. 1 and 2 are illegal against Defendant 00

The lawsuit of this case and its purport and cause of claim are different, which are the contents of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the above defendant, the execution of procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and the claim for mental compensation equivalent to consolation money on the ground of joint tort of 00, 00, 100, and 100. The case related to 1 and 2 related to the defendant 00 also differs from the lawsuit of this case and its cause of claim, which are the contents of seeking mental compensation equivalent to consolation money due to the above defendant's violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act or the mandatory law, and the claim for the refund of intermediary fees due to the above defendant's violation of Article 30 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and the compensation for property damage equivalent to consolation money due to the above violation of Article 30 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. Thus, the case related to 2 related to the defendant 100 also sought property damage equivalent to consolation money on the ground of joint tort. It differs from the contents of the lawsuit of this case and its cause of claim.

C) Accordingly, the instant lawsuit against Defendant No. 00, Maximum00, 100 is related to the first and second cases.

Since each subject matter of lawsuit is different and cannot be seen as a duplicate lawsuit, the above Defendants’ main defense is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor Kim00’s main defense

The supplementary intervenor Kim00 shall be the list of the instant lawsuits against the maximum of 00 in annexed Form 1.

Attached 2. Item 2, which was registered as co-ownership with the Plaintiff among each of the instant real property (as co-ownership with the Plaintiff)

The part seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on May 11, 2007 by Suwon District Court No. 74103 as to the land stated in paragraph (1) of the annex, is that the Gyeonggi-do City Urban Corporation has already sought cancellation of the part of the land expropriation, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit. However, as examined in paragraph (3) of the following 3, the ownership was transferred due to the expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Urban Corporation after the above registration in the name of 00, and as such, in the case of land expropriation, the ownership already owned by the existing owner has become extinguished and the company has become the original owner of the ownership. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff's claim was made impossible, it cannot be deemed that there is no benefit of lawsuit in itself, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff's claim is groundless. Thus, the above principal safety defense by the defendant assistant intervenor Kim00 is without merit.

3. Determination on the part concerning the claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer against the defendant largest 00

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Defendant 100 is the Suwon District Court as to real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List owned by the Plaintiff.

Although the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 11, 2007 as the receipt No. 74103, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the title truster or the Defendant Park 00 who had arbitrarily misrepresented the title truster or his agent without paying the purchase price, the registration of ownership transfer under the above Defendant’s name was completed without paying the purchase price to the Plaintiff, and is not a registration consistent with the substantive relationship, and thus, should be cancelled. In addition, the above registration of ownership transfer is null and void since it was completed in violation of the mandatory law prohibiting title trust (the Plaintiff asserts that the owner of each real estate of this case is the Plaintiff, and on the other hand, the above assertion is made on the premise that each real estate is

B. Determination

According to the statement No. 10-1 of the evidence No. 10-1, the registration of transfer of ownership with the maximum of 00 persons has been made.

Since then, it can be recognized that the Gyeonggi-do City Corporation accepted real estate listed in the list No. 1 of Jun. 2, 2010 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 89491, Jun. 28, 2010). In the above case of land expropriation, where a project operator is unable to know that he is a true landowner without negligence, even if the land expropriation procedure is completed in form, the right holder is not aware that he is the person who is the owner of the object of expropriation, the ownership already held shall be extinguished, and at the same time the project operator acquires the ownership entirely and clearly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 195). Accordingly, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the above transfer of ownership shall become impossible. Thus, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff is without merit.

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) When a tax authority imposes a taxation, it is based on the principle of substantial taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes

If there is another person to whom the transaction subject to taxation belongs, the head of Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea imposes capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as capital gains tax regarding the transfer of each real estate of this case, but the sales price of each real estate of this case is not actually reverted to the Plaintiff and was reverted to Defendant Gab0 pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the said capital gains tax should be imposed on Defendant Y0 in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation.

3) On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant 00 to verify that the registration of ownership transfer in the above Defendant’s name is null and void, and the conjunctively, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the above Defendant to verify the existence of a claim for the purchase price pursuant to a real estate sales contract against the said Defendant. However, on July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff revised the purport of the claim as alleged in the above assertion pursuant to the order to prepare a statement of name on July 25, 2014. However, each of the above claims by the Plaintiff is acknowledged as a lawsuit for confirmation that it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks and apprehensions existing in the Plaintiff’s legal status, but only if it is deemed that there is a benefit of confirmation, the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidation of the above ground for registration is dismissed in itself, and the existence of a claim for the purchase price also does not specify the purpose, scope, and cause of the claim, as well as the most effective and adequate means to remedy the Plaintiff’s rights.

2) In addition, the instant sales contract which is the cause of the collection of the said capital gains tax is forged sales contract.

As a result, the plaintiff did not receive a sales contract under the above contract, and the cause is null and void as it does not fit the substantive relationship, and the collection of the above transfer income tax should also be deemed null

3)In accordance with u300, Defendant Republic of Korea shall return to the Plaintiff the above KRW 106,159,820 as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

1) In order to make a tax erroneously or erroneously paid or overpaid, a tax payment or a tax collection should be null and void as it has no legal basis in substance or procedural law or due to the significant and apparent defect of the tax disposition. If the defect of the tax disposition is limited to the extent that the tax disposition can only be revoked, unless the tax authority voluntarily cancels it or cancels it by the appeal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28000, Nov. 11, 1994).

Therefore, in order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the pertinent taxation, and also to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself. As such, a taxation disposition made to a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations, which is subject to taxation, should be serious and obvious, but if it is apparent only after an accurate investigation of the factual relations as to any legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that the defect is obvious even if it is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation, which is the basis for the pertinent taxation, is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 201).

2) In light of the above legal principles, even if it is found that the tax authority affiliated with the defendant Republic of Korea should additionally investigate the above facts, or that there was an error in the above taxation based on the recognition of the validity of the sales contract of this case as invalid, since such defect is apparent in appearance, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to return the amount equivalent to the above transfer income tax as unjust enrichment, unless the above taxation is revoked, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a significant and obvious defect in the above taxation. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no reason to further consider it.

5. The remainder of the claim against the defendant Choi 00 and each claim against the defendant Park 00, No. 00, 100

Determination as to Judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant Park 00, No. 00, maximum00, 100, and 100 committed joint tort as follows, the plaintiff should pay 10,000 won of consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff respectively.

1) Defendant Park 00 is a title truster of each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

Although the Plaintiff did not have the right to receive the purchase price under the above contract, the Plaintiff was paid from each seller of this case and did not pay or settle the above price to the Plaintiff, and the act of Defendant Park Park 00 is a tort.

2) In order to conceal Defendant No. 00, Maximum00, 100 with a view to concealing the above tort committed by Defendant No. 100:

① The fact that Defendant No. 00 was not the Plaintiff’s agent or the title truster

With knowledge of the defendant, the defendant Park 00 violated the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act in collusion with Park 00

B. Defendant 00, in collusion with Defendant 200, forged the instant sales contract (No. 1-2, 3), and the intermediate payment receipt (No. 16) of this case, and made a false assertion that Defendant 200 had paid the purchase price without any reasonable ground, paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff, or paid the purchase price to Defendant 200 on the ground that Defendant 20 was the Plaintiff’s agent from Defendant 200. ③ Defendant 100 did not have been entrusted with the Plaintiff’s application for registration, but did not forge the written confirmation of the application for registration of ownership transfer (Evidence No. 7) and made the registration of each ownership transfer of this case completed.

B. Determination

1) In a civil trial, even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc., the facts established in the already established civil cases shall be valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds. In particular, the same shall apply to cases where two previous and previous civil lawsuits are the same or their successors, and the facts which form the basis of the dispute are the same, but where a new claim can be filed as a result which does not conflict with the res judicata (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da47292, Jun. 29, 1995).

2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 35, and 36, in the instant case, the following facts were recognized in relation to the conclusion of the instant sales contract and the registration of each transfer of ownership in the instant case. The Plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2013Na46070), and the final appeal (Seoul High Court 2014Da28107) thereafter, on September 4, 2014, the part on which the Plaintiff sought a refund of KRW 14,440,000 to Defendant Intervenor Intervenor Intervenor Kim0 on the ground of unjust enrichment, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed, and the remainder on the same day was determined separately as of the same day.

In the case of No. 1, the Plaintiff is forged with the sales contract (No. 1-2 and No. 3) of this case.

However, in the above case, it is recognized that the seal affixed by the plaintiff's name was affixed by the real estate broker at the office of the defendant 100 among the above contracts, but it is recognized that the seal affixed by the real estate broker.

In the case of a real estate sales contract (Evidence A No. 1-1) done initially on December 14, 2006, the buyer shall have the whole of 00

In other words, the above contract is written as "two persons". Since the identity of the purchaser can not be clearly identified, the contract of this case needs to be supplemented in any form. ② Since Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3, the parties to the contract of this case were accurately specified, and the causes for obstacles to the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the subject matter of this case were extinguished. ③ The plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression for the registration of ownership transfer necessary for the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant assistant intervenor Kim 00 stated as purchaser No. 1-2 and 3, ③ The plaintiff delivered to the defendant 100 in charge of each transfer registration of this case with a power of delegation related to the application of ownership transfer registration to the defendant 100 in charge of each transfer registration of this case. The power of delegation is based on the sale of April 30, 2007, and the authority related to the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant Kim 00 and the defendant 1-200 is insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion that each of the above documents were forged.

The Plaintiff, even in the case related to 1, has paid the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract.

Since it was not directly paid to the Plaintiff, it was alleged that this was unlawful. However, in the above case, the Defendant Intervenor Kim 00, who was one of the buyers, was not directly paid the intermediate payment and the balance to the Plaintiff. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was not directly paid the intermediate payment and the remainder to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant Park 00 was in contact with each seller of this case, and the Defendant Park 00 was in charge of the affairs related to the sale of each of the subject matter of this case before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant Park 00 was in charge of the affairs related to the sale of each of the subject matter of this case. ② At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the buyer directly received the down payment of KRW 160,000,000 paid to the Defendant Park 00 on the date of the intermediate payment set forth in the instant sales contract, and the seller of this case received KRW 640,000,000 from the Plaintiff and the intermediate payment of KRW 300,000.

4) In addition, the fact that Defendant Park 00 was between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 00, the remaining sellers at the time of the instant sales contract, was also recognized by the Plaintiff in this case.

up to the end, the remainder of KRW 800,000 under the sales contract of this case under an agreement with Defendant Park 00

The repayment of secured debt with respect to the right to collateral security established on each subject of the sale of this case, and the non-party

00 Payment of money to Defendant Park 00 and full amount of money in the form of payment, offsetting of lease deposit, etc.

In addition, each of the instant cases at the time when the Defendant’s Intervenor Kim00 paid the remainder as above.

A seller raises an objection to the above method of payment, or demand notice to pay the price.

The seller of this case did not appear to have been the Defendant’s Intervenor on February 13, 2007.

Issuance with a certificate of personal seal for a real estate sales contract issued to Kim 00 and defendant Choi 00, and 207

On or around May of each year, the authority to apply for and withdraw the registration of each transfer of ownership of this case to Defendant 100

the buyer’s assistant intervenor Kim 00 and the defendant, such as issuing a power of attorney to award the contract.

Pursuant to the fact that Non-Party 00 and Non-Party 00 can normally complete each of the registrations of ownership transfer in this case

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff cooperates, the Plaintiff delegated the right to receive the purchase price to Defendant Park 00.

Accordingly, the part payment and the remainder payment made by the Defendant’s assistant intervenor Kim 00 to Defendant Park Park 00

was determined to have completed the performance of the non-performance.

B) Accordingly, the fact-finding and examination in the case related to the above No. 1 as finalized by the Plaintiff are inconsistent.

The following arguments, namely, the sales contract of this case (No. 1-2, 3) is forged, and Defendant Park 00

Defendant Park Park 00, No. 00, maximum 00, under the premise that the receipt of this purchase price is illegal;

In this case where the plaintiff is liable for joint tort of 00, the above final judgment and specifically

If the court does not present any new evidence to prove any other fact, the court shall

The fact-finding in a final and conclusive judgment shall not be rejected without permission.

C) However, the aforementioned evidence and the witness Kim 00's testimony reveal the overall purport of the pleadings.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (written evidence submitted by the Plaintiff)

Most of the documentary evidence are already submitted in the first and second related cases and used as a basic material for the court's judgment.

The result of each party's personal examination on the plaintiff and the defendant Park Park 00 is confirmed only.

The sales contract of this case (No. 1-2, 3) shall be followed to the finding of facts in the case concerned, and the sales contract of this case shall be

The case was forged due to his intentional intention or without his authority.

It is not sufficient to deem that the purchase price pursuant to a sales contract was paid, and otherwise recognized.

Unless there is evidence, Defendant Park 00, No. 00, Maximum00, 100 against the Plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's above claim against the above defendants cannot be deemed to have been justified.

① The Plaintiff’s sales contract (No. 1-2, 3) of the instant sales contract and the receipt of the intermediate payment of the instant case (A)

Although it is alleged that the title 16 was forged, the presence of the plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant sales contract.

Defendant Park 00 directly pays 160,000,000 won as down payment from the Intervenor Kim 00,000,000

In spite of receipt, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto, and further, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the Defendant.

assistant intervenors Kim00, Defendant Choi 00, for a real estate sales contract necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership

Application for and withdrawal of each transfer registration of this case to the defendant Han 00

The execution of the contract of this case, such as granting a power of attorney to the effect that the contract of this case is made.

Along with the fact that the applicant actively cooperates, the seal affixed to each of the above documentary evidence is affixed thereto.

Even if the Plaintiff differs from the seals used in ordinary sense, the Plaintiff’s assertion to Defendant Park 00

In relation to a sales contract, a right to newly create a seal under the name of the plaintiff and affix a seal to the relevant documents;

1. The plaintiff's written evidence is prepared against the plaintiff's will.

That is, the plaintiff's assertion that has been forged cannot be accepted.

② The Plaintiff did not sign or seal the Plaintiff’s balance receipt (No. 17).

claim that the above receipt has been forged or is not legitimate, however, that the foregoing

As seen in the above, the Plaintiff’s right to receive the sales price of this case from Defendant Park 00

Thus, even if the above receipt does not have the Plaintiff’s signature or seal, the above receipt can be said to have been signed or sealed.

It shall not be deemed that it was forged or lawful.

③ The Plaintiff is liable for registration, when Defendant Han 00 completed each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer.

written confirmation (Evidence A(7)) confirming that the Plaintiff was authorized to do so by the Plaintiff

Although it is argued that the above confirmation document was forged because the seal of the person is not the plaintiff, the above confirmation document is not the plaintiff.

The person in charge of writing shall be the defendant 100, and therefore, the person in charge of writing shall be the

The above document cannot be deemed forged solely on the ground that it is not intentional. Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have forged the document.

As seen earlier, around May 2007, the registration of each transfer of ownership of this case to Defendant 100

Inasmuch as a power of attorney has been delivered to the effect that an application and a withdrawal are conferred upon it, its meaning

Even if the above document is forged, it is difficult to view it as forged.

④ The power of attorney to delegate the authority to receive the instant purchase price to Defendant Park 00

Although emphasizing that the contract has not been completed, the buyer, including the defendant last 00, has been awarded the contract of this case.

Defendant Park Park 00 who did not have any particular relationship before the conclusion of the contract shall obtain unjust benefits.

In the event that it is not possible to find any motive to cooperate, it may place the risk of double payment.

The fact that the purchase price was paid in full to Defendant Park 00, who is not a registered titleholder, is only that only that:

To the extent that the Plaintiff delegated the right to receive the purchase price to the purchaser, including Defendant Choi 00, for the purchase price for Defendant Park 00

It can be a counter-proof that it is clearly expressed orally to the extent that it has the conviction of this point.

⑤ The Plaintiff led to the confession that Defendant Noh 00 was “Defendant Park 00, not the Plaintiff’s agent.”

Therefore, this is true that there is no dispute between the parties, and this Court recognizes the above fact as it is.

on the ground that the plaintiff, however, led to the confession of the defendant No. 00

Gap evidence No. 19 (No.00's protocol of examination of witness) is about the examination of witness in this case.

The defendant No. 00 is not a protocol, and the defendant No. 00 is a reply of June 11, 2014 and October 31, 2014.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is entirely denied through a preparatory document, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is duplicate litigation.

on the ground that it is only a statement to the effect that a dismissal judgment is sought, and the defendant No. 00

In addition, it is not possible to view that the facts alleged above were the confessions, and the facts subject to confessions are the facts.

The illegality of this case is limited to the principal facts, that "Defendant Park 00 is not an agent of the plaintiff."

indirect facts or facts which require ratification rather than the main facts which are the requirements for the establishment of an act.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since it is merely about the fact-finding. In this regard, even if it is based on this point.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed.

D. It is so decided as per Disposition.