logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.22 2017나2046487
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same part as the part against the defendant on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting or adding as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. The following is added between the 7th day of the judgment of the first instance and the 8th day of the judgment.

【The four owners of lands, etc. in the project district of this case filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the initial authorization of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap30353), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu62977), and the appellate court (Supreme Court 2015du50283), and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Nu3702), following the Supreme Court’s reversal and transmission of the first authorization of this case (Seoul High Court 2017Nu3702), on the ground that the first authorization of this case satisfies the procedural requirements of owners of lands, etc. and at least 99 persons among the total owners of lands, etc. or at least 98 persons consent, and the consent rate of consent stipulated in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, the judgment dismissing the claim was finalized on June 8, 2017.”

B. The 7th to 14th parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

"In the absence of dispute", "A evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-6, 7, 4-6, A, 5, 7, 8, 11, 21, 22 and 27, and the purport of the whole pleadings"

C. The following is added between 15th day of the first instance judgment and 17th day of the first instance judgment.

In addition, even if there was a change in the partnership, so long as the first association approval exists valid, the claim for sale based on such authorization is lawful and thereby the sales contract for the real estate of this case was established, so the first authorized association will have the right to claim for transfer registration against the defendant.

arrow