(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.14 2014나2032296

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) 서울고등법원 2015.01.14 2014나2032296

소유권말소등기

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall receive KRW 2,103,911,660 from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasons for this part of the judgment of the court on the merits are as stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any addition or dismissal to the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is to add “the defendant paid KRW 2,103,911,660 to the plaintiff on February 10, 201,” which read “the defendant paid KRW 2,103,91,660 to the plaintiff on February 10, 201.”

Nos. 9, 10, and 3 are added to the 4th 12th mar (based on recognition).

No. 5.1 P.C. “3..” as “2.” (Inasmuch as the Defendant stated that the defense was withdrawn on the date of the first instance trial on the date of the first instance trial, it is not separately determined as to the defense of this safety). On No. 6, the evidence No. 10-11, which included the “Evidence No. 4,” as “No. 6.11.”

The following shall be added to Chapter 7 4:

5) The Defendant shall raise a defense of simultaneous performance. In a case where a bilateral contract becomes null and void and each of the parties has to return to one another, it would result in a violation of the principle of fairness and good faith if the obligation to return is enforced first only to either of the parties, and thus, each party’s obligation to return is in a simultaneous performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da45025, May 14, 1993; 95Da54693, Jun. 14, 1996; 2,103,91,60 won was paid according to the instant sales contract, but the instant sales contract becomes null and void due to the defect in the instant resolution, the obligation of the Defendant to cancel the ownership transfer and the obligation to return the Plaintiff’s purchase price is in a simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant is obligated to receive KRW 2,103,91,660 from the plaintiff and to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나59437

-대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 94다55071 판결

-대법원 1993. 5. 14. 선고 92다45025 판결

-서울고등법원 2014.12.24 2014나2027027

-서울고등법원 2016.11.17 2016누48241