logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.01 2014나8305
소유권말소등기
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall receive KRW 1,830,000 from the plaintiff at the same time.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the Defendant’s spouse D with the purchase price of KRW 18,30,000,000,000 to KRW 1,8330,000,000,000,000,000 for KRW 1,8.333,00,000 on the day, and the remainder KRW 1,647,00 on September 20, 2012.

(2) On August 17, 2012, the Defendant succeeded to the instant sales contract as it is, and completed the ownership transfer registration based on the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) under the Changwon District Court registration office No. 40366, August 17, 2012.

(3) On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 16.47 million to the Defendant, and issued a certificate of content that the sales contract will be rescinded in the event that the remainder is not paid until February 14, 2014.

However, the defendant did not pay any balance to the plaintiff by February 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant did not pay the remaining purchase and sale amount by February 14, 2014, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s highest notice, and the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded on February 14, 2014.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the remaining payment date of the remainder was postponed after September 20, 2012. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the remaining payment period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant has already made a judgment on the claim for refund of down payment.

arrow