소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiffs' respective appeals against the defendant C Village Association and the appeals against the defendant A by the plaintiffs A are all dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “36 square meters” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance and “37 square meters” in the “37 square meters”; and except for the determination as follows 2. As to the conjunctive claim against the Plaintiff’s Defendant D, added by this court, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. Judgment on the plaintiff B's conjunctive claim against the defendant D
A. Plaintiff B’s assertion that the sales contract is not effective as seen earlier, and further, Plaintiff A’s loan amounting to KRW 50 million and KRW 130 million are not recognized as the right to claim a refund of KRW 80 million. In addition, Defendant D, as preliminary, is liable to pay Plaintiff B the total amount of KRW 130 million and agreed amount of KRW 80 million and its delay damages.
B. Judgment 1) The sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant D is in fact effective as a security contract for transfer of security for the amount of KRW 50 million loaned to the defendant D. Thus, the defendant D is obligated to pay the plaintiff B the above loan amount of KRW 50 million and the delay damages for the loan (this is alleged that the defendant D borrowed the above money from the plaintiff B, not as a loan of the above money, but as a down payment, but as seen earlier, it is not recognized as valid as a sales contract.
(2) Furthermore, Plaintiff B seeks payment of the agreed amount of KRW 80 million against Defendant D.
However, the reasons why the receipt for KRW 80 million was prepared between Plaintiff A and Defendant D as seen earlier, and the fact that Plaintiff B did not receive the above receipt after actually delivering KRW 80 million to Defendant D, but argued that the above receipt was drafted within the meaning of exempting payment of KRW 80 million in return for providing Defendant D with loans of KRW 50 million.