(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.11.07 2014나2138

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.11.07 2014나2138

소유권이전등기말소등기

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Unauthorized buildings indicated in the Plaintiff’s attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) are purchased from E and occupied and used by the Plaintiff.

In order to repair the building of this case, the plaintiff and her husband F borrowed 15 million won from the defendant as interest of 2% per month (300,000 won per month) and entered into a sales contract with a promissory note with the amount of 26 million won at the defendant's request.

The plaintiff who did not pay interest at once issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the defendant at the request of the defendant, and the defendant used it and changed the name of the owner of an unauthorized building management ledger to the defendant.

This is merely a change in the name for debt security and still a right to use and benefit from the building of this case to the plaintiff. Since the defendant asserted that he purchased the building of this case, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation that the right to use and benefit from the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. On March 17, 2004, the Defendant purchased the instant building from the Plaintiff and paid all the purchase price, and thus, the right to use and benefit from the instant building is the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. At present, the Defendant is currently registered as the owner (Evidence A6), and the Plaintiff asserts that the instant building was offered as a kind of security for the purpose of securing loan funds. Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant lent KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff.

According to the statements and images of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3-10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence 12, the plaintiff issued promissory notes with the defendant as the addressee on March 17, 2004 with the face value of 26 million won and prepared a notarial deed, and the plaintiff remitted them to the defendant at KRW 300,000,000,000 to the defendant on a unit of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the plaintiff installed urban gas facilities and boiler on the building of this case.

However, the defendant is in this case.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.02.07 2013가단9377

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.05 2014가단46366

-서울동부지방법원 2014.02.07 2012가단70914

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.01.10 2018가단4302

-광주지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단8522