beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant D is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 through 9, the following facts may be acknowledged:
On August 21, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with Nonparty I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) on the instant officetel 621 and 622 newly built and sold by I (hereinafter “instant officetel”).
B. Meanwhile, as to the instant officetel 621 on October 10, 2013, the procedure for compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant procedure for compulsory auction”) was initiated with Seoul Western District Court K on October 10, 2013, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 6, 2015 on the ground of sale due to compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant procedure for compulsory auction”). As to the instant officetel 622, the procedure for voluntary auction was commenced with the Seoul Western District Court on January 4, 2007, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 20, 2007, for the instant officetel 6222.
C. From August 22, 2001 to August 22, 2007, Defendant B was the representative director of I; from August 22, 2001 to March 31, 2007, Defendant C was the auditor; from March 19, 2007 to March 20, 2008, Defendant D was the representative director; from March 20, 2007 to March 20, 208, Defendant E was the said director; from August 22, 2001 to May 15, 2003, Defendant F was the said director; from December 22, 2008 to December 22, 201, and from June 11, 2012 to each of its directors.
Defendant H is the spouse of Defendant B. D.
Defendant KS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) received a decision on provisional seizure against real estate (hereinafter “provisional seizure against real estate”) by Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan2197, in order to not pay I the construction cost of the instant officetel as part of the construction work of the instant officetel, as to the said 621, and thereafter received dividends of KRW 48,413,373.
2. Determination
A. Whether the part on the claim against Defendant D among the instant lawsuit is lawful.