소유권이전등기
1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit for quasi-examination shall be borne by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).
1. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are recognized.
A. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) with the Busan District Court Decision 2016Kadan10793.
B. Following the date of conciliation on June 10, 2016, the said court proceeded on June 29, 2016 on the date of first pleading on June 29, 2016, and the date of second pleading on September 28, 2016. The Plaintiff was present at the above date of conciliation and the date of second pleading on September 28, 2016. The Plaintiff, as the husband of the Defendant, was present at the above date of conciliation and the first date of pleading, but did not appear on
C. On September 28, 2016, the said court proceeded with the second date for pleading, and notified the Plaintiff of the third date for pleading on October 26, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant, who did not appear on the second date for pleading, sent a notice of the third date for pleading (hereinafter “the notice of the date for pleading”) by mail, and received directly by the Defendant on September 30, 2016.
On October 20, 2016, the said court shall later designate the date for pleading on October 20, 2016. On the other hand, the Defendant, “1.” On March 27, 2012, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of the provisional right to claim transfer of each of the instant land, which was completed by the Changwon District Court No. 3598, Mar. 27, 2012, upon the registration of the provisional right to claim transfer of ownership, on February 5, 2016.”
AB made it.
E. On October 20, 2016, the said court sent to the Defendant a notice of change of the purport that the original copy of the ruling on recommending reconciliation in this case and the third date for pleading should be changed, and received directly by the Defendant on October 24, 2016.
F. From October 24, 2016, the Defendant did not raise an objection against the instant decision of recommending reconciliation even after the lapse of two weeks, and accordingly, the instant case.