소유권이전등기
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration as the principal lawsuit. The Defendants sought damages due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation due to a counterclaim. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, and dismissed the Defendants’ counterclaim claim.
Therefore, since the Defendants appealed against only the counterclaim part, only the part of the Defendants’ counterclaim claim is subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Basic facts
A. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract and paid the purchase price (i) each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) jointly owned by the Defendants as one-half shares, between the Defendants and the Defendants.
(2) The sales contract provides that the sales price shall be KRW 950,000,000, and the down payment of KRW 130,000,000 shall be KRW 220,000 for intermediate payment shall be paid on October 5, 2016, respectively, and the remainder of KRW 600,000 shall be paid at the same time with the execution of the procedures for ownership transfer registration on October 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
(2) According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the down payment of KRW 130,00,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 220,000,000 on September 26, 2016, respectively.
B. 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the refund of the purchase price as Busan District Court Branch Branch 2016Gahap1327, and the Plaintiff asserted that “Although there exist defects, such as the extended portion without permission and the water leakages, etc. not repaired due to waterproof construction, at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendants stated that the Plaintiff did not have any such defects in each of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff would cancel the instant sales contract or cancel the sales contract on the grounds of deception or mistake.” However, on November 3, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants. 2)