소유권이전등기
The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding "2. Additional Judgment" to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance
(In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the fact finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal). 2. Additional judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot complete the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name before obtaining the farmland diversion permission.
E District Urban Development Project Cooperatives (hereinafter “Unions”). The Plaintiff can obtain permission for farmland preservation charges for the following land after obtaining authorization for an implementation plan for the instant project and paying farmland preservation charges for the procedures for permission for farmland diversion. As such, the instant sales contract is a temporary sales contract which takes effect only when the said implementation plan and the payment of farmland preservation charges are made.
Therefore, since the above implementation plan and the payment of farmland preservation charges after September 6, 2017, the obligation of the defendant to transfer the ownership under the above sales contract and the obligation of the plaintiff to pay the remainder shall be valid, the plaintiff shall not be liable for the delay of payment of the remainder to the defendant until September 6, 2017.
(See the Reasons for Appeal of the Plaintiff on August 18, 2020). (B)
Judgment
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 6’s overall purport of pleadings, namely, ① the sales contract of this case (Evidence No. 2) does not stipulate all the conditions of suspension as alleged by the Plaintiff, and ② the partnership (execution agency) prior to obtaining permission for diversion of farmland as alleged by the Plaintiff.