logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.10 2015나3912
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2003, the Plaintiff developed neighboring land, including 2,337 square meters of land (hereinafter “the land before the instant partition”), which was located in the sports zone, the real estate located in the separate sheet, and carried out the business of selling the housing site by dividing it into the housing site and the road site, and then used approximately 584 square meters of land before the instant partition as a road site. In addition, the Plaintiff decided to sell the remaining land before the instant partition and adjacent land to the applicants for purchase.

B. D on behalf of the Plaintiff [the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the sale of housing sites for the land and adjoining land before the instant division.

A) On September 1, 2004, D concluded a contract with the Defendant’s father Nonparty F, who represented by the Defendant, selling the remainder of 1,753 square meters (excluding road sites, excluding 584 square meters in total, 2,37 square meters) to KRW 118,250,00 (Provided, That the sales contract provides that 6,00,000 won is included in the sales contract) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant’s father, Nonparty F, who held the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, for sale of the housing site and road site are not divided because the location of the road site is not specified and thus, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 2, 2004 regarding the whole of the instant land before the division, and obtained a confirmation document from the Defendant on September 4, 2004, as follows, as to the road site:

It seems that it is a clerical error in the name of Gyeonggi-do, the name of which is 2,377m2,337m2.

(B) Of the land before the division of this case, it is confirmed that the land of this case is a right of A (Plaintiff), and it is provided with necessary documents at the time it is intended to use the land as a road by A, and it is a real estate of the right.

arrow