beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.20 2016가단252137

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant made an agreement on October 5, 2015 with respect to the portion of 1/2 out of the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared a written agreement (Evidence A 2) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, who is a fraud, with the following contents certified by a notarial office:

(2) At the following point, Gap recognized that Eul paid l,00,000 won, which is the aggregate amount of the lease deposit, to the lessee (three persons) occupying the above real estate, and confirmed that Eul had all the rights to this. (2) Gap completed the transfer of ownership to one-half percent share (land and building) in the above real estate indication by October 10, 2016.

3) All the transfer cost of ownership as referred to in paragraph 2 is borne by B. 【The fact that there is no dispute, and entry of A’s No. 2

2. In a case where the judgment on the cause of the claim is deemed to have been duly formed, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753 Decided June 11, 2002, etc.). According to the above facts, the defendant shall be deemed to have declared his/her intent in accordance with the content of the agreement by preparing and delivering the instant agreement to the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for 1/2 of the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff pursuant to paragraph (2) of the agreement.

3. The defendant's assertion and defense

A. As to the defense that the declaration of intention by coercion should be revoked, the defendant made the agreement of this case by coercion against the defendant on the part of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant defense that the declaration of intention should be revoked by delivery of the written response. 2) According to the witness C's testimony as shown in the defendant's argument, the defendant married with D and E and C between them.