2019Na 14088(main office) Lawsuits demanding the acquisition of ownership transfer registration

2019Na14095 (Counterclaim Loans)

A

Attorney Kim Shin-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

B

Attorney Go-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2019Da10077 decided August 21, 2019 (main office), 2019Gaz.

10084 (Counterclaim) Judgment

2020,5.7

June 4, 2020

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaims are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in total.

1. Purport of claim

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) will accept the application procedure for ownership transfer registration for the reason of sale on December 17, 2016 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 374,200,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(b) Counterclaim;

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same shall apply to the entries in the purport of the counterclaim.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The court's reasoning concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions (other grounds asserted by the defendant in the appeal of this court are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and even if all evidence presented by the court of first instance and this court are examined, it rejected the Defendant's claim of this case, and then accepted the claim of this case and accepted the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the counterclaim of this case).

2. Parts to be dried or added;

A. On the second end of the judgment of the first instance, the following is added to the second end of the 16th judgment. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract of this case with a special agreement stating that “1. is a sales contract at present, and the certificate of registration is confirmed, and the contract shall be entered into. 2. The other public charges until the balance shall be borne by the Plaintiff.”

B. On February 1, 2017, this case’s sales contract was terminated on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s defect, etc. Nos. 7 and 8 as follows. The Defendant had a high chips as listed in the separate list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”). This case’s defect, etc. was discovered after the conclusion of the instant sales contract. Thus, this case’s sales contract was terminated on February 1, 2017 on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s defect, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request. The Plaintiff chips as follows. The Plaintiff prepared the first performance certificate between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s additional statement on December 16, 2017, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the following facts were inconsistent with the Defendant’s first instance judgment’s testimony and the first instance judgment’s conclusion. However, this case’s allegation that the Defendant’s testimony was not acceptable under the premise that the Defendant’s testimony was written on the premise that the Defendant’s first instance contract was written.

6) As to the process of cancelling the agreement of the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was rescinded by explicitly expressing that the Plaintiff would cancel the agreement of the instant sales contract if the construction would not be corrected. However, considering the following facts and circumstances, it is not recognized that the instant sales contract was rescinded for the same reason as the Defendant alleged above. In addition, the Defendant would have demanded that the Plaintiff or a licensed real estate agent confirm the instant building on the date of the instant sales contract, and that “the Plaintiff should reduce KRW 100 million from the sales price.” In light of this, it is difficult to view that the Defendant failed to verify the instant building properly, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware of the defect, etc. in the process of acquiring the instant sales contract, which is the object of the instant sales contract, under the status of facilities, and the certificate of the registered matters, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant acquired the instant building by mistake after entering into the instant sales contract.

E. Attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be listed in the annexed Form of the judgment of the appellate court.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals against the principal lawsuit of this case and counterclaims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Park Jong-young

Judge Lee Jae-soo

Judges Kim Gin-sik