소유권이전등기절차이행
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The following facts are recognized to the effect that there is no dispute or the entire pleadings, other than odic evidence:
On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs, as married couple, purchased from the Defendant the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) for KRW 600 million.
(A) Under the contract, “50 million won” portion is not a dispute over the Dow contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). [A] 【The Dow contract amount is KRW 30 million and the remainder is KRW 570 million, and there is no separate statement as to the payment of the Dow payment.
The Plaintiffs agreed to respectively acquire KRW 340 million in total and KRW 100 million in lease deposit, which are the debt of the right to collateral security loan established on the instant real property at the time.
[A] 1 and 4] The remainder that the plaintiffs actually pay is KRW 130 million.
The Plaintiff paid as down payment, ① KRW 10 million on August 3, 2015, the day before concluding the contract, ② KRW 7 million on the day of the contract, ③ KRW 13 million on August 12, 2015, respectively.
[A] On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs paid 50 million won to the Defendant on September 15, 2015, and KRW 20 million on September 18, 2015, which is three days after September 18, 2015, respectively, and thereafter moved into the third floor of the instant real estate on the same day.
[A] The Plaintiffs did not pay the remainder of KRW 60 million until October 6, 2015, which is the remainder payment date.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s remainder payment date (i.e., November 17, 2015) shall be deemed to be written in writing on November 10 and November 17, 2015, both of the “ October 10, 2015” and “ October 17, 2015” as of the date of the completion of the remainder payment as indicated in Gap’s Evidence 7 (Contents Certification).
Although the date of the payment of any balance clearly indicated in the sales contract as " October 6, 2015," the Defendant appears to have agreed to postpone the payment date of the balance between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, in light of the fact that the above content certification referred to as " October 17, 2015," unlike the written contract, unlike the payment date of the balance, the Defendant appears to have agreed to postpone the payment date of the balance. On the other hand, even though the date of delivery of the content certification was " October 10, 2015," the date of delivery of the document is " October 10, 2015."