beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.22 2015가합49

명의변경절차이행

Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 17,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, one of 165 square meters of land B in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 1996, Seoul Special Metropolitan City entered into a sales contract to sell 165 square meters of the area scheduled for B-sale (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out site”) to the Defendant.

B. On June 10, 2008, the Plaintiff and C entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the ownership of the instant parcel out price of KRW 60 million (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and paid KRW 6 million as the down payment on the date of the contract, and KRW 26 million as the intermediate payment on December 10, 2008.

C. Meanwhile, on March 4, 2010, C transferred 1/2 of its shares in the instant land to D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to change the name of the designated seller of the sale site based on the transfer contract of this case on June 10, 2008, to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant constitutes double selling of the transfer contract of this case, and the Plaintiff actively participated in it, which is alleged as null and void. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone constitutes double selling.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff actively participated in it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant defense to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving the remainder of KRW 34 million under the transfer contract of this case. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff and C did not pay KRW 34 million under the transfer contract of this case is not a dispute between the parties.

However, as acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares out of the sale price of this case, and the transfer price also is the transfer price.