소유권이전등기절차이행
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant and the independent party intervenor is dismissed in entirety.
2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is dismissed or added as follows, and the part concerning the intervenor's claim for confirmation of purchaser status against the defendants who are not within the scope of adjudication is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
[The part to be removed or added] Part 6 of the 6th page "the same day" is regarded as " November 26, 2003."
W and X’s “W and X” in Chapter 12 is turned into J and Z.
Part 9 of the title 17 states "from the participant" as "from the participant."
Part 10 of the 12th page [based on recognition] shall add “Evidence 5, 10, 11 of the A” to the column.
Each subparagraph 10 No. 10 of the 15th page 12 and 17 of the 15th page “sick No. 11” is considered as the “sick No. 11” (the judgment of the court of first instance), but according to the evidence list and the record No. 622, this appears to be the clerical error of the “sick No. 11. 11”). The 15th page “relevant cases” in the 19th page is the “related cases (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap7831)” and the 21th class “related cases” is considered as the “case No. 11”.
2. As such, the remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of the Intervenor’s claim for confirmation of the purchaser status against the Defendants, is justifiable. Thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant and the Intervenor is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.