소유권이전등기
1. As to the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is based on the property division agreement on April 19, 2016.
1. The fact that the Defendant entered into an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who was in a de facto marital relationship on April 19, 2016 to resolve a de facto marital relationship by May 31, 2016, and that the Plaintiff entered into a property division agreement with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by June 30, 2016 under the pretext of property division, etc. to transfer the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future (hereinafter “instant property division agreement”), can be recognized without any dispute between the parties, or there is no counter-proof in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the instant property division agreement with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) considering the following: (i) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the Defendant at the time of delivery, and (b) the Plaintiff had already been paid KRW 15 million for damages from C claiming that the Plaintiff was the other party to the instant property division agreement; and (iii) the property that the Defendant had to pay to the Plaintiff according to the instant property division agreement, other than the instant real estate, is cash KRW 100 million, bents car, and D officetels, it is unreasonable to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as property division; (b) the Defendant cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim; however, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be deemed as a ground for nullifying or revoking the instant property division agreement or for reducing the property that the Defendant ought to donate to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant property division agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.