소유권이전등록
1. The Defendant shall enter into an agreement on the transfer of shares of 1/2 of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as of February 14, 2014.
1. The Defendant: (a) had a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff for more than 20 years after the Defendant divorced with the former wife C; (b) around 2014, the Defendant had a de facto marital relationship with C; (c) around February 14, 2014, April 20, 2014, and June 18, 2014; and (d) did not reverse a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff several times; and (c) did not go back again with C. In other words, the Defendant prepared and delivered a written statement stating that the Plaintiff would be able to complete the procedures for transfer of ownership on the land of 506 square meters prior to permanent residence with the Defendant; (d) the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedures for transfer of ownership on the land of 506 square meters prior to the permanent residence with the former Party C; and (e) the Defendant, as a whole, did not have any effect on the Plaintiff’s assertion and delivery of the said written statement to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the agreement dated February 14, 2014 with respect to the shares of the Defendant 1/2 of the instant vehicle, among the instant vehicles, and to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserted to the effect that each of the books or certifications, as of February 14, 2014; April 20, 2014; June 18, 2014; and December 3, 2014, written by the Plaintiff, as to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, should be invalidated or revoked since all of the books or certifications, which were written by the Plaintiff under the pressure of the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
The defendant's argument is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.