소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1, except for the dismissal as follows.
All of the Defendant C are “Defendant”, “Defendant D”, and “Defendant G” as “D”, and all of “Defendants” as “Defendant and D”.
During the second half of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 3" shall be deemed to be "Evidence No. 1 through 9, Eul No. 1, 2, 6, 7, and Eul No. 1 through 3".
The following shall be added to “this case-related litigation” (hereinafter referred to as “this case-related litigation”) in the 3rd and 6th of the judgment of the first instance.
In the 3rd 12th 12th 12th e.g., “Defendant C” and “Plaintiff” in the 13th e.g. “F”, respectively.
D. The Defendant filed a complaint against D on November 10, 2019 with the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office stating that “D was admitted to the Defendant’s proxy qualification on November 10, 2016 without being delegated by the Defendant, and thus, filed a complaint against D as the charge of preparing private documents and exercising that right. However, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central Prosecutor’s Office filed a non-prosecution disposition with respect to D on April 29, 2019.
2. On June 18, 2019, the defendant appealed against the above non-prosecution disposition, and the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office ordered the defendant to re-examine the above accusation case and again investigated the case.
However, on August 29, 2019, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "D") conducted consultation with F in order to perform his/her obligations under the relevant judgment of this case, which was the result that he/she received from the defendant after the relevant judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and even the defendant around April 18, 2014, "F" is KRW 160,000,000 to the defendant.