beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the “U” of the 2nd 14th son of the judgment of the first instance is “C”; (b) the “owner” of the 16-17th 16-17 ; and (c) the “5,94,490 won” of the 3rd 8th 8th 8 parallel is “5,964,490 won”; and (d) the part below the 9th 12 parallels are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the 12th 9th 12 parallels, thereby citing it as is in accordance with
2. Furthermore, the part added to the conciliation protocol of this case is established on July 14, 2005 between F and the defendant as the cause of the application. The content of F is that F will provide AG-ho, AH-ho, AI-ho and Z-ho among the apartment of this case as the substitute payment in lieu of the original obligation. In order to take effect of the substitute payment in lieu of the original obligation, the payment in kind is the so-called river-related contract, which is established at the time of the actual performance of other payment in lieu of the original obligation, other benefits provided by the debtor in lieu of the original obligation, and if the registration or record is required, the original obligation upon completion of the registration is extinguished.
(See Supreme Court Decision 79Da381 delivered on September 11, 1979, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da13371 delivered on September 15, 1995). However, as seen earlier, it is obvious that the Defendant obtained ownership transfer only with respect to the instant apartment zone among the objects of payment in kind from F, and the market price of the said apartment is merely 223,74,632 won, and it does not reach the previous claim amount against F. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s existing claim against F was extinguished upon the formation of the instant protocol of mediation. In this respect, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.