Seoul Central District Court-2016-Gohap-510360 ( November 18, 2016)

Whether the registration of preservation of ownership of the property registered by the defendant constitutes invalidation

(The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance) just because the defendant did not complete the additional registration of prohibited matters under the Housing Act at the time of the completion of the registration of initial ownership preservation, each of the above registration of initial ownership registration

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Seoul High Court 2016Na2086808 Registration for Cancellation of Ownership

○○ et al. and 13

Republic of Korea and 17

2018.04.06

2018.04.20

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the part of incineration shall be revoked.

The claims stated in attached Table 2, other than the part for confirmation of ownership, shall be as stated in attached Table 2.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this case are as follows, in addition to the allegations that the plaintiffs supplement in the trial, the reasoning for this case is as stated in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

��제1심 판결문 제17쪽 제16행의 마지막 '인정된다.' 다음에 아래와 같이 '[ ]'의 판단을 추가한다.

[The plaintiffs asserted that the apartment sale contract was concluded on July 2007, but the sample of the apartment sale contract (Evidence No. 26-9) submitted by the plaintiffs is not identical to that of the apartment sale contract (Evidence No. 5-1 through 14 of the evidence No. 5-1) and its form, and the contents are different, such as deposit account of the apartment sale price, and the date is explicitly stated in the apartment sale contract, and the apartment sale contract is not submitted as of September 10, 2015. In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the apartment sale contract was concluded on July 2007 only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs.

��제1심 판결문 제19쪽 제5행 첫머리의 '점' 다음에 다음과 같이 ⑥항을 추가한다

6) Articles 5 and 16 of the share agreement of this case provide that members shall pay contributions directly to the Si Corporation and have the contributions as revenue from the Si Corporation. Article 13 of the share agreement of this case stipulates that members shall bear the interest on loans for moving expenses borrowed by the Si Corporation and members of the Si Corporation. Thus, the parties to the share agreement of this case claim that the parties to the share agreement of this case shall be members of the Si Corporation, not the defendant association, notwithstanding their language and text. However, in light of the provisions of Articles 5 and 13 of the share agreement of this case as seen below, Article 5 of the share agreement of this case is clear that Article 5 of the share agreement of this case and Article 13 of the share agreement of this case set the criteria for payment in kind between the defendant association and the defendant Tae Il Il-il Construction, and Article 13 of the share agreement of this case set the obligation to lend or take the moving expenses in accordance with the criteria for the share agreement of this case, but this is not directly affected by the contract of this case, but indirectly affected by the parties to the agreement of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.