소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is all presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “before the instant exchange contract is in accordance with the instant exchange contract”; (b) the fifth instance judgment’s fifth instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “Fho”; and (c) the first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “before May 10, 2017”’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “from March 4, 2019”; and (d) the first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s reasoning and second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s judgment’s second instance judgment.
[Supplementary Use]
B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and Defendant C agreed on February 2, 2017 that “Defendant C shall acquire ownership immediately before the instant exchange contract and the Plaintiff shall succeed to loans and transfer of ownership to each of the instant commercial buildings until March 13, 2017, according to the instant exchange contract, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform this, he/she shall waive the right to the instant commercial buildings and each of the instant commercial buildings, and shall not raise any civil or criminal objection against Defendant C.”
However, as seen later, Defendant C did not claim the benefit of waiver of the right by undergoing the Plaintiff’s request, criminal complaint, civil petition, etc., and without claiming the benefit of waiver of the right, and delayed the time limit set by the agreement of February 2, 2017.