1. The defendant shall receive KRW 133,400,000 from the plaintiff B, and at the same time, shall be listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table to the plaintiff B.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff B and the Defendant: (a) as to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1; (b) as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 on July 4, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (c) as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 338,400,000; (d) as to each of the above real estate, the Defendant shall file for preservation registration within 30 days from the completion date; and (e) the Plaintiffs shall fully pay each
B. The registration of ownership preservation was completed on January 15, 2018 in the name of the Defendant for each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, but the registration of ownership transfer was not completed in the name of the Plaintiffs until the closing date of the instant argument.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the sales price was fully paid on the date when each sales contract was concluded with the Defendant.
In addition, around January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs paid the above expenses to the above certified judicial scrivener on the ground that the defendant would immediately pay the expenses incurred in implementing the procedure for ownership transfer registration to D judicial scrivener.
However, the defendant has not fulfilled the obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiffs until now.
Therefore, the defendant should implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the attached list of paragraphs (1) and (2), and also pay damages for delay due to delay of the fulfillment of the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer.
B. It was true that the sales contract was concluded between the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant, but the Plaintiffs paid only part of the sales price (Plaintiff B’s KRW 105,000,000, and Plaintiff A’s KRW 230,000,000).