소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B for purchase (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) of all the building on the ground of the Gunsan City and three parcels of land, including each real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant B. The real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same list was destroyed due to a cause not attributable to both parties.
Therefore, the Plaintiff primarily sought from Defendant B the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the above sale and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “second real estate”) as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “first real estate”) and sought compensation for damages arising from the impossibility of the performance of the obligation for ownership transfer registration as to the first real estate and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price as to the second real estate.
B. The Defendant limited liability company’s claim for the development of the seaman industry of the Defendant limited liability company (hereinafter “Defendant company”) was actively involved in the sale of real estate Nos. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2008, and purchased each of the above real estate from Defendant B on November 12, 2012. As such, the above sales contract between the Defendants is null and void as it is contrary to good customs and other social order, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant company as to the real estate No. 1 is invalid.
Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration regarding the first real estate by subrogation of the Defendant Company on behalf of the Defendant B.
2. The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 13, 22, and 23 (including paper numbers) are not sufficient to recognize that real estate Nos. 1 and 2 were an appurtenant building to the above EF building, or that the plaintiff and defendant B agreed to be included in the above sales contract's subject matter, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, each of the above evidence and arguments.