소유권이전등기절차이행청구 등
1. The appeal by the defendant and the independent party intervenor is dismissed;
2. An independent party intervenor added in the trial;
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim as to the claim for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the portion of 211.16/439, out of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Category C, 439.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and accepted the first preliminary claim, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as to the portion of 228.44/4, out of the instant land. Meanwhile, the first instance court did not make a decision as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of ownership transfer as to the portion of 439.6/6, out of the instant land.
As to this, the Defendant sought the revocation of the first claim against the Defendant regarding the claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning shares 21.16/439 of the land in this case, and sought the dismissal of the first and second preliminary claim. The part against the Defendant as to the share 228.44/4 of the land in this case did not file an appeal.
Therefore, in relation to the principal claim, this court shall, in principle, decide only the propriety of the claim for the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration among the first and second preliminary claims on the portion of 211.16/6 of the land in this case (the claim for extradition concerning the portion of 211.16/6 of the land in this case was not determined by the first instance court, and thus, it shall not be judged by the appellate court and the first instance court as it remains in the first instance court). However, since the intervenor appealed in addition to the purport of the claim as follows, if necessary for the determination of the unity of the conclusion, it shall be determined within the extent that the plaintiff and the defendant did not appeal.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573 Decided October 26, 2007). B.
As to the share of 228.44 percent of the land of this case, the intervenor in the scope of the adjudication on the application for intervention by an independent party shall be based on the assurance of March 7, 1985 against the defendant at the first instance court.