logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가합47172
지분이전청구권가등기말소등기이행
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

On October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan280995, and was sentenced by the above court to the effect that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 21% interest per annum from August 1, 2008 to the date of full payment of KRW 37,90,621 per annum from August 1, 2008 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

Attached Form

The provisional registration of the defendants' right to claim the transfer of all shares in the name of the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter "the provisional registration of this case") was completed on June 29, 2004 by the receipt No. 53724 of June 29, 2004 with respect to the shares of 23/10 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") among each real estate listed in the list. The grounds for registration of the provisional registration of this case are stated as the promise for payment in kind on June 29, 2004.

【The provisional registration of this case was made pursuant to the promise for payment in kind on June 29, 2004 between D and the Defendants, and the right to complete the reservation was extinguished by ten years of the exclusion period. The provisional registration of this case was completed on June 29, 2004.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to perform the procedure of cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to D upon the Plaintiff’s request on behalf of D.

On December 27, 2013, before the expiration of 10 years from the date of the pre-sale agreement, the Defendants exercised the right to complete the pre-sale agreement with D.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the ground of the exclusion period is without merit.

Judgment

According to the following facts in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 through 21 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 through 21, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants exercised the right to complete the reservation by concluding a payment contract with D on December 27, 2013, which was before the lapse of ten years from June 29, 2004, the date of the promise for payment in lieu of the instant real estate. Thus, the Plaintiff is premised on the exclusion period.

arrow