소유권이전등기
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. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance that is stated in the second “1. Recognizing that it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance,” this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. As to this part of the judgment on the grounds of claim, this court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance that is stated in the second “2.
In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant, a seller of the purchase and sale contract dated March 31, 2017 (the instant purchase and sale contract in the first instance judgment), is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 31, 2017, with respect to the land of Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “Fdong”) which is the object of sale and purchase in the Plaintiff, as the purchaser, for the land of Daejeon (hereinafter “Fdong”), 171 square meters (the land stated in the claim of the first instance judgment falls under the “instant land”).
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this part of the cited reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, this court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, “determination on the Defendant’s argument” as stated in Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, 420 of the Civil Procedure
However, each entry indicated as " May 15, 2015" in the third part of the above written judgment "B" shall be deemed to be " May 15, 2017".
B. On March 31, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, the purchaser of the purchase contract, was not discharged in full due to the “bundled contract,” and the Defendant’s summary of the allegation that the contract for the purchase and sale contract of March 31, 2017 (Evidence A) entered into with the Plaintiff, as the so-called “bundled contract,” is not KRW 94,000,000, but KRW 11,000,000,000 plus KRW 11,00,000,000,000 (= KRW 94,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000, and KRW 94,000,000,000,000 through deposit, etc. by the Plaintiff.