beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2018.09.04 2018나2227

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and even based on the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence additionally submitted in the trial, the first instance judgment is deemed legitimate.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is that the reasoning for this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) on the argument that the defendant emphasized in the trial.

(1) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle by failing to perform the investment agreement of this case. However, the Defendant’s claim does not constitute an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle. The foregoing assertion is rejected).

A. The Defendant, who had been running the business of constructing and selling officetels on the instant land before the instant auction procedure had been asserted by the Defendant, had already acquired the name of the building permit through consultation with I Co., Ltd., and all financial institutions that intend to engage in a PF loan, provided “the terms and conditions for completing the business license”. As such, only if the name of the owner is changed to the Defendant, the PF loan, etc. was immediately conducted.

Meanwhile, in order to change the name of the owner, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, issued a written consent to the use of the said land to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that “the Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with the written consent to the use of the land only for six months,” and thus, six months after the registration of ownership transfer under Article 4 of the Investment Agreement.