(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가합56942

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가합56942

토지인도

Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to 5.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1, 1.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate” as indicated in the separate sheet 1 through 5; when real estate listed in the separate sheet is individually named, the Plaintiff sold the real estate in KRW 2,50,000,000 according to the sequence thereof; on the same day, the Plaintiff donated the instant 4 and 5 real estate to Defendant C&C Center (hereinafter “Defendant C&C Center”) within three years, by prescribing that the gift contract may be rescinded if the Defendant AF Center does not build a building within the missionary area.

(2) On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 through 3, 2013 to Defendant AF on February 20, 2013. On the same day, the Defendant’s mission center completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate Nos. 4 and 5.

Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant AF and Defendant AF seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the sales contract and gift contract (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”) with this court on the ground that the construction of buildings of the missionary work center is not paid for the purchase price and the construction of the missionary work center.

In the instant case, on March 11, 2016, the court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on the ground that each of the instant contracts was lawfully rescinded, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (which includes a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the ground for a claim for determination of the purport of the entire pleadings are acknowledged to have been rescinded of each contract of this case in the prior suit of this case.

Furthermore, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 to 10, defendant AF and defendant mission center.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.03.11 2015가합57832

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2008. 03. 24. 선고 2007가단25649 판결

-대구지방법원상주지원 2016.05.11 2014가단8171

-인천지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나57240

-광주지방법원장흥지원 2015.07.01 2014가단1387