beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.09 2016가단113995

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant’s agreement on payment in kind on May 30, 2015 with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 3, 2007, the Defendant purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from C and 3 others in total from 4,393,010,000 square meters in total, including Kimpo-si and D, E, F, G, H, H, and I land, and 18 square meters in total. During that process, the Defendant paid the remainder after deducting the amount of 1,740,370,000 won for the Plaintiff’s seller out of the purchase price.

B. On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a payment contract in lieu of the following contents with the Defendant:

(hereinafter “instant accord and satisfaction agreement”). Indication of real estate: each of the instant real estate

1. Eul (referring to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) recognizes that while purchasing and selling the land as indicated in the indication of the above real estate, KRW 1,300,000,000, which is the deducted amount, and KRW 440,370,000, which is the deducted amount, out of the purchase price to be paid to J, an existing owner of the said land in the course of the said sale and purchase, set off claims against J and K.

2. Recognizing that paragraph 1-off claims have been transferred from Party A, in return for the assignment of the claims in question, Party B shall accord to Party A part of the existing J-owned land (Gimpo L, M, N,O, P) and existing K ownership (Gimpo Q, R, S, T, U, V) in lieu of the assignment of claims in question.

3. A and B agree not to cancel the right to collateral security established on the land at present on payment in kind.

4. Afterward, Gap does not raise any civil issue with respect to the land between them.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the agreement for payment in substitutes of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.