(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단28219

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) 수원지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단28219

소유권이전등기 말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts are without dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 27, 2013 after the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a compulsory auction on the apartment of this case on June 25, 2012. The fact that the Plaintiff made the registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant on June 27, 2013 can be acknowledged by taking into account

2. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the effect that the purchase price of the instant apartment was KRW 315 million, down payment, KRW 30 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder KRW 285 million on June 28, 2013, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder until the payment date. As such, the Plaintiff rescinded the sales contract of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s delivery of the complaint of this case did not perform the obligation to pay the remainder. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement of evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including the number with each number) alone is insufficient to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion; (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; (c) the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the Defendant is paying interest on a loan obligation to a national bank, which is the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the apartment after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant with respect to the apartment of this case; and (d) it is difficult to believe that the seller had completed the registration of ownership transfer to the buyer before receiving a large balance payment in light of the empirical rule to believe it is difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to believe that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to accept the loan obligation to the above national bank and to substitute the payment of the balance; and (b)

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.01.12 2015가단5206

-수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2018구합69555

-인천지방법원 2016.11.11 2016나52388

-제주지방법원 2015.01.08 2014가합1788

-제주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단15391