소유권말소등기
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment. A.
The primary defendant B is about each real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff.
1. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each land indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) owned by the Plaintiff between the primary Defendant and the primary Defendant (hereinafter “the instant land”). In return, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the primary Defendant, and obtained a registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 200 million with respect to the instant real estate owned by the primary Defendant in a marital relationship with the primary Defendant, and entered into a contract with the primary Defendant to receive the amount equivalent to KRW 1,984 square meters out of the size of 1,984 square meters (hereinafter “instant contract”).
[However, the agreement on the agreement (A) seems to have been prepared by the primary defendant at his own discretion in the name of the primary defendant. Accordingly, on January 9, 2013, the plaintiff made a registration of ownership transfer on each of the land of this case to the primary defendant on December 20, 2012 (hereinafter "registration of ownership transfer"), and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff with the maximum debt amount as KRW 200 million for the real estate of this case, and thereafter, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the primary defendant.
On February 28, 2013, when the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage under the Plaintiff’s name was cancelled without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff asserts that, between the primary Defendant and the Defendants, the establishment of a right to collateral security of KRW 2.5 million with respect to the Seoul apartment that is currently residing by the Defendants’ husband and wife, and KRW 2.5 million with respect to June 30, 2018, the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 2.50 million due to the Plaintiff’s deception, mistake, or the Plaintiff’s agent’s mistake, but actually received KRW 30 million. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that, as seen above, stated KRW 30 million in the primary claim of claim No. 1.
The Agreement was concluded to receive the payment of the amount.
After that, the primary defendant is obligated to establish the right to collateral security under the contract of this case.