소유권이전등기말소등기절차이행
1. The part concerning the claim for the termination of the sales contract among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. On September 20, 2016, the following terms and conditions were written between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D:
(hereinafter “instant agreement”). [This case’s agreement] (1) The Plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, and the inheritor D of 96 square meters of 856 square meters of 856 square meters (land owner F, heir D, hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Incheon Cheong-gun, Incheon, signed a mutual purchase and sale contract for the instant land No. 1 and 2 and agreed to exchange.
② D consented to the use of the instant land as a road by the Plaintiff, and thereafter, if inheritance regarding the instant land No. 2 is commenced in the future D, D shall transfer the ownership to the Plaintiff.
③ The instant land No. 1 is transferred to the Defendant, who is a partner of D.
: The contractor who is the Plaintiff: F (he inheritor) D Dongs;
B. Pursuant to the instant agreement, the registration of ownership transfer as stated in Paragraph 2 of the claim regarding the land of this case was completed in the future of the Defendant.
C. The instant land No. 2 was F’s ownership, but F was complicated since the death in 1993, and the inheritance registration was not made until now since F was complicated, and the Defendant was F’s grandchildren.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff performed his obligation in accordance with the instant agreement, and the Defendant did not implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land No. 2.
The Defendant’s use of the instant land No. 2 constitutes the instant agreement with respect to the instant land No. 1 and No. 2, which is about five times the market price of the instant land by abusing the Plaintiff’s mershion disposal that requires approval for road use. As such, the instant agreement is null and void in accordance with Article 104 of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have used the expression “cancellation” that the contract of this case was terminated, but appears to have claimed the “cancellation.” In addition, the Plaintiff’s restoration to its original state is the land of this case.