(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단7510

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) 춘천지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단7510

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On August 30, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 300,000,000 for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between the Defendant and the Defendant, but the down payment of KRW 30,00,000 for the purchase price; KRW 70,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 70,000 for the contract date; and the intermediate payment of KRW 70,000 for the payment until September 15, 2011; and the remainder amount of KRW 200,000 for the payment until October 31, 201; and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 for the down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 10,00,00 for the instant real estate. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that each of the following procedures for ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate is liable to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2011.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that: (a) evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 3 (a receipt) were forged by the Plaintiff; (b) evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 3 (a receipt).

The descriptions of Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 3 (a receipt) are insufficient to recognize that Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 3 (a receipt) have been established as a genuine, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

If so, Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) and Gap evidence No. 3 (a receipt) are not admissible, and thus, they are not admissible.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract on August 30, 201 with respect to the instant real estate, as seen above, the health class Nos. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 3 (a receipt) that seem to correspond thereto cannot be used as evidence for lack of admissibility, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

If so, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a sales contract for the real estate of this case on August 30, 2011 are without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.10.19 2015가단22703

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.02 2013가합61348

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.03.15 2016가단211377

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단239107

-수원지방법원 2017.09.29 2016가합73975