소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff, the husband of the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 22, 2013, E 1,015 square meters, and the land in this case was divided into 1,960 square meters, which was owned by the Defendant, on August 28, 2015, the purport of the entire pleadings is either nonexistent between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 (including the serial number), and there is no reflective evidence.
2. On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with respect to the instant land in KRW 9,000,000.
In the first place, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the land of this case on the grounds of the above sales contract.
Preliminaryly, the plaintiff entered into the above sales contract with the defendant's deception, and thus the above sales contract is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to return the above money to its original state.
3. First of all, the determination on the cause of the claim is insufficient to recognize the existence of a sales contract by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the instant land, only the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 8-10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 10 (including each number), and the overall purport of the pleadings in witness G, the fact that Eul issued a written consent for land use to Eul with respect to 162 square meters among the above FF No. 1,960 square meters adjacent to the above E land on April 5, 2014, D and the defendant entered into a contract for new housing construction for the above land on September 16, 2014, and according to the telephone between the plaintiff and the defendant on July 17, 2014, which was the date of the conclusion of the above sales contract as alleged by the plaintiff, that "the defendant's failure to transfer the ownership" was not "the plaintiff asked that he did not transfer the ownership, but did not transfer the ownership at all," and that G introduced this to the plaintiff.