beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Of the instant lawsuits, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties D and E.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part against Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointor D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) regarding the share of 5.96/54.8 of the instant site against Defendant (Appointed Party) is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, inasmuch as there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the acquisition of the section of exclusive ownership under No. 801 of the 8th floor of the instant building.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 7-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7-2, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015, which was following the judgment of the court of first instance, that if the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million out of the sale price unpaid to the Defendant, etc., the Defendant, etc. would make the Plaintiff implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration concerning shares in the site No. 801 of the instant building. Accordingly, on December 15, 2015, the part against the Defendant, etc. regarding the portion of 5.86/548 of the instant building out of the instant building site is unlawful, since the ownership transfer registration on the ground of the acquisition of the exclusive ownership No. 801 of the Plaintiff’s name on January 8, 2014 and the ownership transfer registration on the building No. 801 of the instant building is no longer necessary to file a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against the Plaintiff, etc.
In this case, the Plaintiff is the Defendant, etc. on the premise that the share of the site No. 801 of the 8th floor of the instant building is 5.96/8.