[소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1969민(2),287]
Details of the duty of transfer to be done by the buyer when selling land secured for development outlay.
In the sales contract for the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the seller registered the change of the buyer's name in the public book of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and registered it in order to change the last right holder of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay.
Article 568 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Central District Court (67Ga14270) in the first instance trial
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 12, 1968 to the date of full payment.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.
A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).
The same shall apply to the order.
On August 25, 1967, Defendant 1 sold 100 to Defendant 2, the size 100 to 205 to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 205 copy of the land secured for recompense of development outlay, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that Defendant 2 sold 30 to the Plaintiff 795,000 won for the remaining 4th of the front side of the road, among 100 to 105 copy of the above 205 copy of the land secured for recompense of development recompense of development outlay-gu on October 10, 1967, the Plaintiff paid 10 million won for the down payment, the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 for the 25th day of the same month, and the sum of KRW 300,000,000.
The Defendants, 1, 2, 1, 3-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2, 8-1, 8-2, and 9-1, and 7-2, respectively, are not indicated in the name of 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, and 9-7, and were indicated in the name of 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 7, and 9-2, 7, and 9-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 7, 7, and 9-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 7, and 9-1, 6-2, in order to sell the remaining amount of land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay to the Plaintiff on the 10-6-6-1, 1966.
In addition, according to the above Gap evidence No. 1 (sales Contract), the payment of remainder and the delivery of documents required for transfer of ownership are in the simultaneous performance relationship, and if the seller violates contract, the seller shall compensate for the amount double of the down payment. Thus, the land secured for recompense of development outlay of this case cannot be registered before the land substitution disposition becomes final and conclusive, and if there is sale or purchase of the land secured for recompense of development outlay of this case as seen above, the seller, the buyer has made an application for change of the buyer's name to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the buyer has changed the buyer's name to the land secured for recompense of development outlay of land in order to change the last right holder's name to the land secured for recompense of development outlay of land secured for development outlay of this case. Thus, the documents required for transfer registration under the above evidence No. 1 of this case are the documents required for change of the buyer's name to the land secured for development recompense of development outlay of land secured for development outlay of the plaintiff, the seller of the land secured for development recompense of development outlay of the plaintiff and the plaintiff 20.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 200,000 won and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from January 12, 1968 (the next day from the day after the service of the plaintiff 1, in response to the plaintiff's claim) to the full-time payment day, which is obvious that the plaintiff is the next day from the record that the plaintiff she gushes up, and therefore, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to five percent per annum. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be justified and accepted. Thus, the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is revoked with reasonable grounds, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne, and the judgment is delivered in accordance with Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 9,
Judges Lee Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)