beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나37301

승낙의 의사표시

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the building of this case on its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Plaintiff company on April 27, 2005 due to a compulsory sale by official auction as of January 11, 2005, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 2, 2008 under the Defendant’s wife C’s name as of April 1, 2008 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On April 1, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit, such as divorce and division of property, against C as Seoul Family Court Decision 2016Dhap33479 (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”). On April 25, 2016, the Defendant completed the provisional attachment registration with the claim amounting to KRW 700 million on the instant building.

C. On the other hand, around April 2016, Plaintiff Company filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the instant transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant cancellation lawsuit”) against C by asserting that “A, who is the manager of Plaintiff Company, sold the instant real estate to C without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders,” and received a favorable judgment on June 24, 2016, and thereafter, the said favorable judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, each entry of evidence Nos. 20 and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that, although the real estate of this case is the main property of the Plaintiff company engaging in the real estate sale and lease business, the Plaintiff sold the above real estate to C without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the registration of transfer of ownership in this case based on the invalid sales contract is null and void, and the Defendant, a third party with interest, has a duty of consent to the cancellation of the above transfer of ownership.