소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 3 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “certificate of No. 8” of the first instance judgment No. 2, No. 8 of the second instance judgment is dismissed as the “certificate of No. 6”; and (b) the “statement of the same conduct” is added to “each testimony, testimony, and testimony of the witness E and F of the party in the trial; and (c) the Defendant’s decision on the matters alleged in the trial are as stated in the part of the reasons for the first instance judgment, and thus, (d) the same shall apply in accordance with the main sentence of Article
【Additional Decision-Making Matters】 The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff rescinded the said sales contract by serving a preparatory document dated December 2, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 45,000 to the Defendant for the purchase price.
In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act that forms the content of the document should be recognized, unless there are any special circumstances that allow clear and acceptable denial of the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit, since there are no special circumstances where it is obvious and acceptable to deny that “the Defendant received the purchase price of KRW 45,00 on Aug. 19, 1980.”
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to claim for ownership transfer has expired ten years since the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
Even if a person exercises a right against either party, such as delivery, registration, etc., of real estate, the person who exercises a right cannot be deemed as a locked person on the right to such real estate as a whole. Thus, in cases where a purchaser continues to possess the real estate upon delivery, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer does not run (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da32175, Mar. 18, 199).