(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가합6301

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) 제주지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가합6301

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 140,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from October 9, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2012, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) due to sale.

B. On August 16, 2013, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with the content that the Defendant purchases each of the instant real estate from C for KRW 400 million.

C. On September 5, 2013 upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with C to purchase each of the instant real estate in KRW 300 million. On the following day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on September 5, 2013 for each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) concluded a pre-sale agreement with the Plaintiff to sell each of the instant real estate at KRW 160,000,000 in the purchase price (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”); and (b) on November 14, 2013, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) was completed on the said real estate on the ground of the pre-sale agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant's letter of promise for trade, and the defendant's stamp image part is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document due to the lack of dispute. The defendant's seal was stolen by a third party, or the defendant was deceiving and sealed by the plaintiff, and thus the authenticity cannot be established. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, as seen below, the defendant prepared the contract for trade of this case to the plaintiff for the purpose of harming the provisional registration of this case, and it is recognized that the defendant participated together at the time of the preparation of the above contract) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단110452

-울산지방법원 2015.03.04 2014가단26674

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가합581482

-울산지방법원 2017.01.25 2015나21936

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.10.11 2016가단1669