beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.19 2018나2064819

소유권이전등기 등

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 1,508,044,950 from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As to the claim that the Defendant, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, should not deduct the lease deposit from the purchase price of the instant real estate, was one of the grounds for appeal, the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim regarding the deduction of the lease deposit in the first instance trial (However, the purport of the claim is not modified). Accordingly, as seen in Section 2(a), the lower court’s final decision, which corresponds to the determination on this issue and the final conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance, should be made.

In addition, since the defendant asserts that there is an error in the result of appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance after the first instance trial, it is necessary to add the judgment in accordance with Paragraph 2(b) below.

This court's reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the above-mentioned dismissal or addition among the reasons to be explained on this case. Thus, this court's reasoning is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. As the Defendant alleged that the lease deposit should not be deducted from the purchase price of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff withdrawn his claim that the lease deposit should be deducted, the judgment of the court of first instance was made by cutting the last 7th day below.

C. The obligation to pay the buyer's price at a reasonable price from the sale of real estate upon exercise of the right to demand sale related to simultaneous performance, the seller's obligation to transfer ownership, and the obligation to deliver the object

Therefore, at the same time, the Defendant received KRW 1,508,044,950 from the Plaintiff as the purchase price equivalent to the market price, and simultaneously performed the procedure for ownership transfer registration on October 17, 2016, which included the details of exercising the right to demand sale of the instant real estate, and is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

(b)the grounds for appeal;