소유권이전등기
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C, H, and I’s counterclaim are dismissed.
2. Defendant B (Counterclaim Defendant)’s Intervenor Co., Ltd.
1. Defendant C, H, and I’s counterclaims must attach revenue stamps under the provisions of law to the counterclaims, and Defendant C, H, and I did not attach revenue stamps to the counterclaims and did not correct the stamp amounting to KRW 26,126,00 within seven days from this court’s order to correct the stamp amounting to KRW 26,126,00 from the stamp of the counterclaims within seven days from this court. However, even if service was made on January 4, 2017 by this court, it is obvious to this court. Thus, the counterclaims by the said Defendants are illegal and cannot be corrected.
Therefore, an order to dismiss a counterclaim under Article 254(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act should be issued. However, since a lawsuit has been continued by being served on the Plaintiff with a counterclaim and the pleading has been in progress, it is reasonable to dismiss the instant counterclaim by a judgment.
(1) The Defendants’ counterclaims of the above Defendants are asserted to the purport that the principal lawsuit and its purpose are identical to that of the Plaintiff, so it constitutes a case where the recognition is exempted pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Stamps Attached to Civil Litigation, Etc. However, as to the principal lawsuit seeking the performance of the transfer of ownership, where the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim seeking the payment of the purchase price in preparation for a case where the claim is accepted while the Plaintiff sought the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim, even if the Plaintiff voluntarily sought a repayment decision, the counterclaim cannot be deemed to be the same as the principal lawsuit, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted).
A. (1) On September 2, 2010, the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified on September 2, 2010, and the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly notified on the designation of the rearrangement zone and the formulation of the rearrangement plan for the zone (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”).
(2) The Plaintiff’s Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on December 18, 2012.