소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 134,600,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously received the payment from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established for a reconstruction improvement project of the size of 52,476 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on December 12, 2008 from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 16, 2013, respectively.
B. The Defendant owned and occupied the instant house within the said rearrangement project zone, and consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association.
On the other hand, the house of this case was completed on January 31, 201, by the registration office of the Seoul Northern District Court, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on January 31, 201, and by the registration office of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on June 25, 2012, the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on June 25, 2012.
C. From May 30, 2013 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from a cooperative member, and extended the period to August 11, 2013 (hereinafter “first application for parcelling-out”); again, received an additional application for parcelling-out from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “second application for parcelling-out”).
However, the defendant did not file an application for parcelling-out during each of the above applications for parcelling-out.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion consented to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association, but as the Plaintiff loses the status of the Plaintiff’s member because it did not file an application for parcelling-out, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 39 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right to demand sale and seek the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration and the transfer of the instant housing upon cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the said association on May 17, 2014, the date following the completion date of the second application for parcelling-out, which is the date following the completion date of the second application
B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant could maintain its membership at the time when the defendant loses its membership.