logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018나57698
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” to the new argument of the plaintiffs at the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of

2. Even if the instant agreement constitutes an accord for payment in substitutes, the Plaintiffs could not complete the registration of initial ownership because they failed to obtain approval for use even after the completion of the instant loan. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiffs had the Plaintiff, who purchased the instant loan from the Defendant Company at the end of February 5, 2004 or at early early 2005, leased the instant loan to AC, had the former buyer reside in the instant loan, and had the former buyer do so, and had the latter reside in the instant loan. On April 18, 207, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 30,000,000 in the name of the value-added tax on the instant loan, or exercised the obligation of exclusion from the instant loan by paying the principal and interest of T on March 25, 201, thereby exercising the right of exclusion from the instant transfer registration.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, ① an application for registration by subrogation is allowed pursuant to the relevant statutes, such as the Registration of Real Estate Act, and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant company with respect to the loan of this case was completed for the entrustment of registration of the decision to commence compulsory sale issued by Nonparty AD upon the application of Nonparty AD, the creditor of the defendant company. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs did not have any way to register the transfer of ownership with respect to the loan of this case, and ② the promise

arrow