가등기말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: “The Plaintiff’s obligation” as “E”; “The purpose corporation (E)” as “the former part of the judgment of the first instance; “The Plaintiff” as “the former part of the judgment of the first instance; “The former part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 7-2” as “the former part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 7; “The latter part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-2” as “the former part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 9 (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”); “B” as “the Plaintiff”; “B” as “the latter part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 8; “E” as “E”; “The latter part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 16” as “the latter part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and thus, as is cited pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E asserts that the instant sales contract was rescinded on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the obligation to pay part payments.
However, around January 5, 2015, H entered into a secondary sales contract with F to purchase the instant real estate, etc. at KRW 8 billion, and tried to prepare the principal contract around January 20, 2015, but the F did not appear at the place of promise, and thus the preparation of the contract was omitted.
Afterwards, while H filed a complaint with F and under investigation, it agreed to set the price of KRW 7.7 billion and pay the intermediate payment of KRW 783,540,414 which was already paid as the purchase price in lieu of the payment of KRW 80 million.
Therefore, since the plaintiff did not fulfill the obligation to pay part payments, the rescission of the sales contract of this case is illegal, and the plaintiff still owns the real estate of this case, and thus, the provisional registration of this case and its basis have been completed as a claim for exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, which is null and void because there is no relationship with the defendants.