소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On October 30, 2005, the basic facts were determined to purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the purchase price of KRW 153,00,000, the down payment of KRW 15,300,000, and the remainder payment of KRW 15,30,000, within five months from the date of the payment of the down payment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At that time, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 15,30,000,000 to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Defendant received down payment after concluding the instant sales contract with the Defendant, and received down payment. The Plaintiff’s status based on the instant sales contract was transferred in order to the Plaintiff in order, the Dozp C&C, the Dozp-based Dozp-based Doz-based Round, D, Doz-based Doz-based Doz-based Dop Construction, and the Plaintiff. Therefore, at the same time, the Defendant is obligated to pay the purchase and sale payment from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and at the same time, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for the real estate listed in the separate sheet as the instant sales contract on December 31, 2007. (2) Defendant 1 agreed that the instant sales contract was null and void, as it did not pay the remainder by December 31, 2007 with the Defendant. Accordingly, the instant sales contract became null and void, and it waived the said down payment.
② The Plaintiff is not the purchaser of the instant contract, since the status of the obligee was transferred to SPC, and the status of the purchaser was not transferred according to the instant sales contract.
③ Change of the purchaser of the instant sales contract from west L&C to the Plaintiff is null and void as it is based on the title trust agreement, and even if not, it is not so.