소유권이전등기
This Court has dismissed the claim that changed to exchange in this Court.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: “On April 1, 2017,” the “On March 1, 2017,” which was 6th 6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deemed to be “on March 1, 2017,” and “after the completion of the said 13 parallels” (hereinafter “the following”) is the same as the entry in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of “(d)” of the instant nearby mortgage creation registration. Therefore, this part shall be cited pursuant to
2. On March 2017, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties and the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties to the determination thereof, concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate in KRW 500 million through C, which was delegated by the Defendant to sell the instant real estate around March 23, 2017, and drafted the instant sales contract, which was made on April 1, 2017, with the date of the sales contract as of March 23, 2017.
Meanwhile, at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the instant real estate from E, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant instead of the Defendant, by means of paying the down payment amount of KRW 50 million. The Plaintiff’s delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for change of the cause of the claim as of September 23, 2020, as the instant loan claims are automatic bonds, set off against the amount equal to the Defendant’s claim for
Therefore, at the same time, the Defendant was paid KRW 450 million from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 50 million - KRW 500 million - KRW 500 million), and upon cancelling the registration of establishment of the instant real estate, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership with regard to the instant
Although the Defendant’s assertion delegated the conclusion of the instant real estate sales contract to C, the said contract was not a contract with the Plaintiff as the buyer, and the Defendant terminated the delegation of the duties to enter into the sales contract with C before C entered into the sales contract with the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant did not have concluded a sales contract for the instant real estate with the Plaintiff.