[건물철거등청구사건][고집1979민,60]
The plaintiff is paid KRW 550,000 from the defendant until December 31, 1969, and at the same time, the meaning of the deadline under the revolving clause that the plaintiff shall carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the above shares due to settlement on October 14, 1969.
The contents of the above year are established by establishing a legal relationship by which the other party expressed his/her consent to the execution of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares in the above site when the defendant pays KRW 550,000 by December 31, 1969, and the above period is not determined by the completion date for the defendant to be entitled to legal fiction of the other party's consent to the execution of the registration procedure for the transfer of a producer's right by paying the above amount until that time, but has the meaning of the due date for which the defendant is liable for delay unless the defendant pays it by that time.
Articles 152 and 387 of the Civil Act
Provisions of Incorporation
Jurisdiction-gu
Daejeon District Court (77Gahap380) in the first instance
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.
The defendant shall complete the procedure for cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the Daejeon District Court No. 65719, Oct. 4, 197, and No. 65719 on October 4, 197 with regard to five to 26 to 26 to 469 in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, 469, and six to 469 to 6 to 469 to the plaintiff, and shall implement the procedure for registering the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the above 26 to 26 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 1 house for the above 26 to 26 to 1 house for the above 20 to 1 house for the above 1 to 1 house for the same 1 to 2 house for the same 1 to 4,421,700 won.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.
5. The above shares of 1, 26.1, 469 shall be registered for the transfer of ownership between the above shares of 1,26.1, 5, 469 and the above shares of 2,69 shall be registered for the transfer of ownership of 109/527 shares in the land originally owned by 527, Daejeon District Court No. 2049 on July 11, 1968, 1956, 40.18/527, 40.2, the above shares of 1,57, 1977, 657, 657, 1969, 197, and 26.2, 1,269, 196, 26, 3, 469, 196, 465, 196, 26, 196, 166, 26, 166, 36, 36, 1, 1,266, 1,2,2,2.
The plaintiff acknowledged that he had ownership as to the above portion of the land by the above judicial compromise, and it was decided to acquire the right to purchase 50,00 won by paying the above amount to Dong on December 31, 1969, and the above period until December 31, 1969 is determined as the completion date for the defendant to purchase the above shares. Since the above amount was not paid by the above time limit, it is argued that it is null and void for the defendant to execute the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the invalid settlement as above, although the above fact that the defendant lost its validity by the expiration date for the above time limit for the above time limit for the settlement, the above contents of the settlement are 50,00 won by the defendant's non-performance of the above time limit for the above time limit for the above time limit of 100,000 won, and it is decided that the above time limit for the defendant's non-performance of the above time limit for the above time limit of 20,000 won by the above time limit for the above time limit of 1.
Then, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's deposit of the settlement and assertion of the validity of the settlement are null and void since 8 years from December 31, 1969 to April 197, which is the due date of the above settlement, was in violation of the principle of good faith. However, the defendant's claim that the right holder by the above settlement is not in violation of the principle of good faith is not in violation of the principle of good faith.
Therefore, under the premise that the above reconciliation has lost its validity, the plaintiff's claim for objection against the defendant as one of the persons who jointly inherited the above land shares from the party who jointly succeeded to the above land from the party who jointly succeeded to the above land shall be dismissed as it is without any reason to examine the other points. Thus, the judgment of the court below which made the conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition
Judge Advice (Presiding Judge)