(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나46980

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나46980

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: "Land and Business License Acquisition Contract" in Part 6 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "the acquisition agreement of this case"); "No. 4. 2" (hereinafter "the termination agreement of this case"); "No. 1. 11" in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than adding "No. 1. 1." (including each number)," and "No. 8" in the same part, and "No. 1. 1. 3. 1." in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. The parties' arguments and the issues of this case

A. Inasmuch as the instant acquisition agreement, including the instant additional agreement, was already terminated due to the Defendants’ assertion of the termination agreement, the Plaintiff cannot seek to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land based on the said acquisition agreement against the Defendants.

Rather, pursuant to Article 2 of the termination agreement of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the provisional registration of this case against the Defendants at the same time receiving KRW 1.49 billion from the Defendants.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to the termination agreement of this case, the acquisition agreement of this case can be terminated only when the Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 1.99 billion to June 30, 2014. However, since the Defendants failed to perform the above payment obligation, the above acquisition agreement of this case still remains valid. 2) The termination agreement of this case was invalidated by the following agreement of this case.

3. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant acquisition agreement.

C. The key issue of the instant case is to seek implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure against the Defendants on the premise that the instant transfer agreement remains effective.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나23009

-서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2062888

-부산지방법원 2017.11.30 2016가단59675

-서울고등법원 2018.11.15 2017나2042621

-대전지방법원 2018.06.27 2016가단216783