2017Na35681 Registration of the transfer of ownership

2017Na35698 (Counterclaim) Registration of cancellation of ownership

A

B Regional Housing Association

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Da251225 (Main Office), 2016 Decided June 13, 2017

Seoul High Court Decision 258585 (Counterclaim)

November 2, 2017

December 14, 2017

1. Each of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the preliminary counterclaim extended in the trial is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of lawsuit incurred by the extension of claims in the trial are borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

(a) Main claim;

1) 1 selective claims

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) is subject to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) to the share of 42.54/13 of the share of 13,543 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “the share of the instant site”) and implements the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the acquisition of the section for exclusive use on March 10, 2010, 105 Dong 1001.

2) 2 selective claims

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale contract dated July 6, 2009 with respect to the share of the land in this case to the plaintiff.

(b) Counterclaim;

1) The primary claim

The plaintiff shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on March 10, 2010 by the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court) No. 9284 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the defendant, and deliver the real estate.

2) Preliminary Claim

With respect to KRW 306,061,320 and KRW 50,000,00 among them, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant an amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from July 7, 2009, and from September 30, 2009 to the day of full payment, from September 30, 2009 to the day of full payment (the Defendant extended the conjunctive claim at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

(a) Main claim;

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(b) Counterclaim;

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same judgment as the claim of the main or preliminary counterclaim shall be sought.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), except for the addition of 'a judgment on a new argument' to 'a new argument' to 'a certificate of No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 6 and 'a certificate of No. 6' to 'a certificate of No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 8.

2. Determination on new arguments

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should additionally pay acquisition tax of KRW 8,061,320 based on the acquisition of shares in the site of this case, in addition to the unpaid sale price. According to the evidence No. 4, the fact that the Defendant stated the Warsaw price of KRW 6,316,50 in addition to the sale price, and KRW 8,061,320 in addition to the sale price, is recognized. However, in the sales contract (Evidence No. 2 of this case) made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the sales contract (Evidence No. 2 of this case) made between the Plaintiff was set at KRW 483,316,50 in terms of the sale price of the apartment of this case + KRW 477,000 in terms of the sale price of this case + KRW 6,316,500 in terms of the above show price of the sale price of this case; ② the agreement on acquisition tax was not made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2009 (Evidence No. 5, No. 63165,5000).

(3) On October 14, 2009, the Plaintiff paid acquisition tax of KRW 4,770,00 on the instant apartment on October 14, 2009; ④ there was no mentioning mentioning about acquisition tax on the Plaintiff at the time of investigating whether the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the instant apartment after the change of the head of the Defendant’s association; ⑤ the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the portion of the instant apartment under the premise that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the instant apartment after full payment; ⑤ the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment under the premise that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the instant apartment, and the ownership transfer did not have been completed with the completion of the joint completion of the procedure, and thus, it appears that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay acquisition tax of KRW 8,061,320 on the portion of the instant apartment under the evidence No. 4-1 on the sole basis of the written agreement that the Plaintiff agreed to pay acquisition tax of KRW 8,061,320 on the acquisition of the instant apartment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the selective principal lawsuit shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the defendant's main claim and the conjunctive counterclaim shall be dismissed on the grounds of its reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified, and the appeal against the defendant's main claim and the counterclaim shall be dismissed on the grounds of its reasoning, and each appeal against the defendant's main claim and the counterclaim shall be dismissed on the grounds of its ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in the new type of judge

Judges Park Young-chul

Judges Lee Dong-ju

1) Rather, the Defendant asserted in the first instance court of this case that the authenticity of No. 4 was denied.