logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.03.30 2017가단6541
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendants are paid KRW 80 million from each of the Plaintiffs, and at the same time, KRW 480,000 shall apply to the Plaintiffs in Jeju-si.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with H to purchase KRW 480,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to G in Jeju-si, and paid KRW 340,000,000 to H by the date of the contract.

B. H died on June 23, 2017, and its inheritors are the Defendants.

【Defendant D/F’s ground for recognition: The fact that there is no dispute against Defendant E, the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants who inherited H are obligated to perform the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the land in this case (=1/9 shares in inheritance = 1/3 x 1/3 of the Plaintiffs’ shares in each of the land in this case (= 240 million won = 580 million won - 340 million won) x 1/3 of the inheritance shares) from the Plaintiffs, while receiving the payment of each balance of 80 million won from the Plaintiffs.

B. The above defendant Eul's assertion that since the defendant Eul transferred the down payment of KRW 340 million from the network H account to his own account and did not distribute it to the defendant Eul, he cannot accept the plaintiffs' claim until he receives 1/3 of the purchase price of KRW 580 million equally. However, as long as the plaintiffs paid the down payment of KRW 340 million to H as above, as long as the defendant Eul did not distribute it to the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul cannot seek equal payment even for the remaining amount of KRW 240 million against the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant Eul's assertion on the different premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

arrow