소유권말소등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination as to the assertion of non-instigation agreement added by the defendant or added by this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 5th page 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "within the limit of KRW 340,000,000,000" to "the purchase price for 7th page 5."
2. The defendant's decision on the defendant's non-prosecution special agreement (the part to be additionally determined) has concluded a sales contract of this case with which the plaintiff would not assert any right or raise any objection against the defendant while entering into a sales contract of this case, and the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
The agreement to bring an action, one of the passive litigation requirements, is within the scope of the right to be disposed of by the parties to the agreement, and is allowed when limited to a specific legal relationship, and is valid at the time of the agreement.
(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration without raising any objection to the acquisition by L, who is the purchaser of each of the above real estate, and by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration, as otherwise alleged in the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership transfer registration.