beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단5126350

건물명도

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuits, each part of the claims for the performance of the procedure for cancellation registration shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 32 million.

Around September 26, 2012, the Defendant paid 9.9 million won out of the purchase price by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s New Bank Co., Ltd., and paid the remainder in cash to the Plaintiff around the date of the said contract.

B. Thereafter, on October 8, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for provisional seizure of real estate in Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan50425 with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff as the preserved right for the rescission of the above sales contract. The said court accepted the Defendant’s application and rendered a provisional seizure on October 26, 2012. The provisional seizure registration of the instant real estate was completed on October 26, 2012 with the Government Registry of the District Court (hereinafter “Provisional seizure registration of this case”) No. 99286 on October 26, 2012. On April 11, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the adjustment of the return of the purchase price of KRW 32 million with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 money23583,500,000 with the Defendant’s deposit account (the Plaintiff’s deposit account) by 301% from May 28, 2013.

“A decision was made in lieu of the adjustment, and the above compulsory adjustment decision was served on June 5, 2013 on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise any objection within the objection period, which became final and conclusive on June 20, 2013.

After that, the Plaintiff filed a written objection against the compulsory adjustment order on July 1, 2013, when the pertinent period for filing an objection was exceeded, but the said court rendered the said judgment on June 5, 2013.