소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant is limited to the Plaintiff’s sale on October 23, 2010 with respect to the building indicated in the attached list.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 (including additional numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
[A] No. 4 (Real Estate Sales Contract) does not conflict with the Defendant’s seal, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The Defendant defense that the seal was stolen, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.]
On October 23, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to obtain a successful bid price of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant in the procedure of the auction of real estate rent C for the Daegu District Court racing support by the Daegu District Court, but the bid price of KRW 9,200,000 was borne by the Plaintiff, thereby lending the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the defendant has been awarded the building of this case in the above auction procedure and paid the successful bid price on October 23, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant.
In the process, the Plaintiff was also responsible for all expenses, such as acquisition tax, registration tax, and registration entrustment fee for the building of this case.
B. On October 23, 2010, a sales contract (No. 4; hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was drafted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to purchase the instant building from the Defendant at KRW 10,000,000 (to be paid in lump sum on the day of the contract).
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff agreed to take over the ownership of the instant building in the event that the Plaintiff could not receive delivery of the instant building from the lien holder due to the relationship with the lien holder at the time of receiving the successful bid of the instant building by lending the Plaintiff’s name.
However, the lawsuit against D and the Defendant regarding the order of delivery of real estate regarding the building of this case (Tgu District Court 2010Ra179, Daegu District Court 2010Ra179), which had been exercising the right of retention on the building of this case, was pending, and the lawsuit against the Defendant is the wind of the lawsuit above.