logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.18 2016나2015066
소유권이전등기
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant 1/6. Each of the real estates listed in attached Tables 1 and 2 list 1/6.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiffs within the scope of adjudication against the Defendant: (a) as the primary claim, filed a claim against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer based on a compromise contract on December 10, 2012; (b) “The Defendant shall: (c) perform the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the legal reserve return for 17/238 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2; and (d) Plaintiff A shall perform the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the legal reserve return; (c) Plaintiff A shall be 28,539,610 won; and (d) Plaintiff D shall be 32,537,610 won; and (e) Plaintiff C, E, E, and F shall be 28,873,610 won; and (e) the sum of the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the consent of the Plaintiff from February 22, 2013 to September 25, 2015; and (e) the aforementioned claim for the amount calculated to KRW A1400,000.

The court of the first instance only dismissed or partly the claim for ownership transfer registration and the claim for damages for delay against the main claim, the main claim, the conjunctive claim, and the claim for ownership transfer registration and the claim for damages for delay against the main claim and the conjunctive claim, but did not render any judgment as to the remainder of the money and the claim for damages for delay (hereinafter “the part omitting the judgment of this case”).

However, in the case of preliminary consolidation, since several claims are indivisible in one litigation procedure, some of the judgments such as rejecting only the primary claims and not judging the conjunctive claims are contrary to the nature of the preliminary consolidation, and it is not legally allowed. Nevertheless, in the case of a judgment that does not judge the conjunctive claims while rejecting the primary claims, an appeal against the judgment is filed.

arrow