beta
Text
1. Upon a claim for change in exchange at the trial, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B, respectively, listed in [Attachment 1 and 2].
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is as follows: (a) in Part 2 of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A mediation" is "A mediation (hereinafter "the instant mediation", and the protocol prepared on the date is "the instant mediation protocol")"; (b) No. 4, 6, and 10 "the above mediation protocol" is "the instant mediation protocol"; (c) No. 4, 10 "B" (attached Table 2); (d) "B" (the real estate listed in attached Table 2; hereinafter "each real estate listed in attached Table 4; hereinafter "each real estate of this case"); and (d) No. 1, 4 "A" of Part 1, 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than each appeal.
With respect to the implementation of the instant protocol, the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to register the transfer after dividing the real estate [the real estate indicated in paragraphs (2) of the attached Form No. 1 and (3) is divided] indicated in the attached list of the instant protocol, which is not the registration of transfer by shares, and not the registration of transfer by shares, (the real estate indicated in paragraphs (2) of the attached Form No. 28,760 square meters, E prior to 92 square meters (the real estate stated in paragraphs (1) and (3) of the attached Table].
Accordingly, the transfer of ownership was completed by May 30, 2007 with respect to the portion for which the transfer of ownership is possible, but each of the instant real estate was finally agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer when it is possible to transfer each of the instant real estate due to land transaction permission issues.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the agreement on May 30, 2007 with respect to each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants asserted by the Defendants, as asserted by the Plaintiff, have revised the content of the instant conciliation protocol in the direction that is remarkably unfavorable to the Defendants.