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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) addition to the defendant’s argument added in the second instance judgment at the end of the second instance judgment at the court of first instance; and (b) addition to the defendant’s argument added in the trial at the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning for the judgment at the court of first instance, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), this refers to the part as stated
[Additional Part] Moreover, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on December 3, 2010 on each of the instant real estate on December 9, 2010.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) even if the Defendant did not undergo liquidation procedures stipulated in the Provisional Registration Security Act in the course of completing the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration of this case; (b) the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate and five multi-family housing bonds from A, and did not perform the borrowed money and the obligation for construction cost that the Plaintiff would accept in lieu of the payment of the purchase price; (c) thus, the above sales contract concluded between A and A on February 3, 2015 by delivery of the preparatory document as of February 3, 2015
B. Based on the judgment, the Defendant purchased each of the instant real estate from A on June 15, 201 in KRW 150 million, and paid KRW 150 million to B and C after paying the said purchase price, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the instant provisional registration on June 16, 201 with respect to each of the instant real estate on June 16, 2011, as seen earlier.
According to the above facts, the defendant paid the purchase price to A in full and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case in the future of the defendant, and there is no assertion or proof as to whether the defendant has any claim against A with the preserved bond to exercise the creditor's subrogation right. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
The defendant's claims for preservation.