beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On February 20, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a sales contract or a transfer agreement with the Defendant on February 20, 201; (b) the Defendant, if the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 million, concluded a sales contract or a transfer agreement with the Plaintiff on the content that the Plaintiff would complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract, etc.”) and the content that the Plaintiff would complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate sales contract, etc.”) prior to the merger.
However, around April 26, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for D real estate only to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant on April 29, 201 according to the instant sales contract, etc., but did not transfer the registration for the instant real estate.
The Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant real estate in accordance with the instant sales contract, etc. to the Plaintiff.
(2) According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership for D real estate on April 26, 201, and the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 2.5 million to the defendant through F on April 29, 201. However, in light of the following circumstances known from each of the statements as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to conclude that the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff included the contents of the instant sales contract concerning D real estate in April 20, 201, and that the plaintiff transferred KRW 2.5 million to the defendant through F on April 29, 2011. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to conclude that the sales contract of this case was included in the contents of the instant real estate transfer.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit. A.
The Plaintiff’s husband G around 1964, around 5,871 square meters from the Defendant’s side of the H, 5,871 square meters before the division.