소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant D shall be dismissed.
2. Attached Table 3’s “Defendant” means the Defendants’ entry.
1. In a civil lawsuit against Defendant D, the purport of the claim is to be stated in the complaint necessary for specifying the subject matter of the lawsuit and the scope of the trial by the court, and the contents and scope thereof should be specified clearly so that it can be clearly identified. The lawsuit for which the purport of the claim is not clearly specified is unlawful.
However, the Plaintiff modified the purport of the instant lawsuit through the “application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim” on November 3, 2015, and did not state real estate subject to the obligation to register the transfer to Defendant D, which was not corrected thereafter. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant D cannot be deemed as having been specified in the purport of the claim, and thus, is unlawful.
(2) The Defendants other than Defendant D are the Defendants of this case (hereinafter “ Defendants of this case”). 2. Claims against the Defendants of this case
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s status and real estate status as the party to the housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) is located within the area of 65148 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.S.
The Defendants of this case are those possessing each real estate located in the business area of this case as shown in the separate sheet No. 2. The Defendants of this case are those possessing each real estate located in the business area of this case as shown in the separate sheet No. 2. Among the Defendants of this case, a lease contract with each corresponding amount stated in the separate sheet No. 3 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, other than Defendant F, G,V, P, and Q, has been concluded (the Plaintiff is the total amount of the lease deposit related to Defendant B is 12 million won, and the total amount of the lease deposit related to Defendant C is eight million won. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the total amount of the lease deposit related to the Defendant C is eight million won. However, if the argument was added to the purport of the entire argument as of March 25, 2016 and the fact-finding inquiry of W community service center as of the date of closing the argument, Defendant B is limited to six million won between X and Y as of March 25, 2016.