beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단19427

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On October 30, 2005, Seocho L&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S&C”) purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant, with the purchase price of KRW 141,00,000, down payment of KRW 14,100,000, and the remainder payment of KRW 14,10,000, within five months from the date of the down payment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At that time, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 14,10,000 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2's entries, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s status as the purchaser was successively transferred to the Round S&C, the Round Round Round, C, the Round Round Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1 did not pay any balance, and thus, the instant sales contract became null and void, and Shn&C renounced the down payment.

② The Plaintiff is not in the position of the buyer, and the status of the buyer under the instant sales contract was transferred only to the Plaintiff’s status as a creditor of the L&C. Thus, the Plaintiff is not in the position of the buyer.

③ According to the instant sales contract, changing the purchaser from west L&C to the Plaintiff is null and void as it is based on the title trust agreement. Even if not, there was no agreement to change the purchaser’s status several times, and thus, the instant claim constituting the intermediate omission registration is without merit.

④ The claim for ownership transfer registration based on the instant sales contract expired by prescription.

3. Determination

A. Even based on the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission (the statement A3-1), the creditor C and Securities SMB Co. on September 25, 2009 and the security right and the rights incidental thereto are only confirmed to be transferred to the obligor SPC, and the fact that they are assigned to the obligor’s SPC’s personal information.