가등기말소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:
As Seoul District Court Decision 2002Kadan21549 decided January 16, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation on the provisional registration of this case, alleging that there was no trade reservation, which is the act of causing the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”), which was completed on January 16, 2001 by the Gangnam-gu District Court registry office of Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”), or that the provisional registration of this case
B. On February 5, 2003, the above court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that "The sale price of the apartment of this case was actually paid by the defendant and her husband (the plaintiff's husband)" and the plaintiff made the provisional registration of this case in order to preserve the defendant's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership, so the plaintiff's assertion that the non-existence of a cause act or false conspiracy constitutes false representation
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the above court 2003Na1164, but the above court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 13, 2003. In the case of Supreme Court Decision 2003Da68123, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da68123 Decided March 25, 2004, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal.
2. The plaintiff's assertion on grounds for retrial
A. At the time of the promise to sell on January 15, 2001, the Plaintiff, which was the cause of the instant provisional registration, set the transaction amount of the instant apartment at KRW 90 million at the market price. The Defendant did not fully pay the purchase price under the instant apartment sales contract to the Plaintiff.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a content certificate to the Defendant three times after the pronouncement of the instant judgment subject to a retrial (as of December 12, 2003, April 16, 2004, August 24, 2004), and made a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the purchase price.