Seoul Western District Court 2011 Gohap2883 ( October 22, 2011)

The object of a real estate sale contract shall be the room for the real estate registration injury.

Since the plaintiff's purchase of multi-household housing has been registered for the preservation of ownership, the purpose of the sale contract was indicated in the sale contract, and it is recognized that the exclusive area of the object of sale is not specified. Thus, it is common to confirm and purchase the register of the real estate purchaser.

2011Na66834 Payment of Seized Claim

Korea

AAA Development Corporation

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2011Gahap2883 Decided July 22, 2011

March 28, 2012

April 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant ParkB

(1) (1) Defendant LCC’s objection to the transfer of ownership, etc. that was completed on October 11, 2007 by this Court No. 110104;

(2) The Defendant Z Credit Union shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage completed on October 11, 2007 by Law No. 110105 of this Court;

나. 피고 안산시, 피고 대한민국, 피고 QQQQ보험공단, 피고 PP광역시는 위 1. 가. (1)항 기재 소유권이전등기의 말소등기에 대하여 각 승낙의 의사표시를 하라. 2. 피고 박BB은 원고에게 별지 목록 기재 부동산에 관하여 2002. 6. 18. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라.

1. Basic facts

The fact that Defendant ParkB newly constructed a multi-household on April 16, 2002 in Ansan-si OB and sold a multi-household house on April 16, 2002 with the registration of ownership transfer on each unit; that the first floor of the above multi-household house has a heading room of 0.00 square meters on the left side; that there is a heading room of 0.00 square meters on the right side; that there is a heading room of 0.00 square meters on the right side; that a larger area is 000 square meters on the building register and the building register; that the narrow area is 102 heading; that the Plaintiff is 00 heading on the building register; that the Plaintiff is the owner of '000 square meters on a narrow area'; that the Plaintiff is registered on the building register as the owner of '0000 square meters on the wide area' on each side is not disputed between the parties or is acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of purchasing the above multi-household house from Defendant ParkB, the Plaintiff purchased a house equivalent to 0.000 square meters, which is the larger of the zero story at the time of purchasing the above multi-household house. However, on the ground that the above multi-household house is 000,000 square meters, the Plaintiff registered as the owner of '00 on the register' on the ground that the above multi-household house is 000 square meters, and the Plaintiff purchased the house equivalent to 00.00 square meters from Defendant ParkBB as the owner of the above '0.00 square meters on the register' on the register, and the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant ParkB as the owner of the above '00.00 square meters on the register.' The Plaintiff had a right to claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of Defendant ParkB' on the registration of the 'YB' on the registration of the maximum ownership transfer on the register of Defendant ParkB by subrogation of the size and the agreement between the parties on the registration of ownership transfer on the registration of Defendant ParkB.

3. Determination

The issue of this case is what is the subject matter of the sales contract agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant ParkB. Therefore, the fact that the above multi-household house was registered as "00 heading Eul of a larger area" around April 16, 2002, and "00 of a narrow area". According to the evidence No. 2-1 and evidence No. 3, the plaintiff purchased the above multi-household house from the defendant ParkB on May 26, 2002 according to the sales contract. According to the registry, even in any case on June 18, 2002, it is stated that the above preservation registration was completed, and that the exclusive use area of the above multi-household house was not specified, and that the person who purchased real estate was confirmed as the register of the register and the plaintiff's assertion that the above multi-household house was purchased without being recognized as the subject matter No. 40.B.

The plaintiff's claim shall not be accepted as groundless.