logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.06.25 2014가합3135
건축주명의변경절차이행의청구
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2012, Plaintiff A entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants and the other building owners (P, Q, R, S, and T) to construct a new site on seven lots, including P, Q, and the rest of building owners (P, Q, R, and T) 2,939m2, 437m2, V forest and fields, 1,713m2, X forest and field, and 1,719m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the other hand, on June 26, 2012, the Defendants and the remaining building owners obtained a building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”) as described in the attached Table from the macromarket as to the instant building, such as the 1 Dong, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 Dong, 11, 12, 13 Dong, 126.18 square meters and Jeju building, respectively, and 5 Dong, 6, 7 Dong, 8 Dong, 126.48 square meters, respectively, of the instant building on the ground of the said 7th parcel.

C. The Plaintiff A commenced the instant construction work after entering into the instant contract, which is currently suspended due to the payment of the construction cost.

On April 16, 2014, according to the application for voluntary auction by the macro Livestock Industry Cooperatives for the instant land, the procedures for voluntary auction began on April 16, 2014, and the Plaintiffs sold the instant land to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer (the Plaintiff A shall have 1278/2664 shares and 154/264 shares of each of the remaining Plaintiffs) under the status of 55406, which was received by the registration office on September 30, 2014.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 and 8, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendants and the rest of the building owners did not pay the construction cost properly and did not have good credit, and the Plaintiff A entered into an agreement on October 1, 2013 with a view to the stable progress of construction works and the definite payment of the construction cost.

arrow