logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.31 2016가단5054851
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 2014, the Korea Asset Management Corporation affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) sent a notice of the application for purchase of State property to the Plaintiff (the trade name before the change: B & B) and B to receive the application for purchase of State property by October 7, 2014, where the Defendant-owned land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an application for purchase of this land to the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application for purchase”). C.

On May 29, 2015, the Korea Asset Management Corporation sent to the Plaintiff andB a notice that the designated competitive tendering is scheduled through online tendering from June 15, 2015 to June 16, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1, 2, 10, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 26, 2014, which only the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, submitted an application for purchase of the instant land within the deadline for submission publicly notified by the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and even though Scar golf Co., Ltd., an affiliate company of the Plaintiff, paid indemnity and loan, the Defendant decided to sell the instant land through the designated competitive bidding procedure on the grounds that B submitted the application period with excessive time limit. Since only the Plaintiff’s application for purchase is valid, it is unreasonable to proceed with the sale procedure of the instant land by means of the designated competitive bidding.

Therefore, the defendant is primarily liable to express his/her consent because the plaintiff's application for purchase of this case constitutes an offer, and even if it is not so, the application for purchase of this case constitutes an expression of consent to a sales contract, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the purchase price in advance and simultaneously perform the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership of this case.

B. The Plaintiff is determined.

arrow