구상금
1. 91,900,000 won for Defendant I and Defendant J in each of the claims that have been changed in exchange at the trial.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of common premise shall be as follows: (a) the 7th 20 to 8th 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used; (b) the 2-C part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted; and (c) the 10th 12 of the judgment shall be the grounds for recognition of the 10th 12th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "B No. 12-1, 2, and 3" to the grounds for recognition of the 10th 12th 12 of the judgment.
“2) After the dispute over the validity of the sales contract, Defendant A, C, D, E, F, G, and H filed a lawsuit against the Association for the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).
On December 19, 2013, Seoul High Court recognized that each sales contract concluded between the aforementioned Defendants and the associations on the pertinent date stated in the “sale contract (sale) date” as stated in the attached Table 3, is valid. On the other hand, the Seoul High Court declared that each of the above Defendants and the associations accepted the simultaneous performance defense of the union and ordered the union to implement the procedure of sale transfer registration for the pertinent real estate stated in the “sale contract (sale)” stated in the attached Table 3, while receiving the payment for the unpaid sale price, etc. from the said Defendants, the Court ordered the union to implement the procedure of sale transfer registration for the pertinent real estate stated in the “sale contract (sale) date” stated in the same Table.
In the above judgment, the amount of debt, such as the unpaid sale price for the Defendants’ associations (hereinafter “instant sale price”) was determined as stated in the “unredeemed sale price, etc.” column in attached Table 3.
The above judgment was dismissed and finalized as it is.
[Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9083 Decided December 23, 2015] Meanwhile, Defendant I and J also filed a lawsuit against the partnership for the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant case No. 2”).
(b).