beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuit, the part requesting the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the following is added to the evidence Nos. 1 through 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the facts of recognition No. 1. 1.), except for adding “Evidence No. 1 through 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance” to “Evidence No. 1 through 17 of the same part, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
B. Additional portion “A. The Defendant repaid the total of KRW 75,706,848,00,000 to F Co., Ltd. on December 12, 2018.”
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Article 22(1) of the Housing Act provides that “A project operator who has obtained approval for a project plan pursuant to Article 21(1)1 may request the owner of a site (including a building) on which he/she has failed to secure a title to use the site among the relevant housing construction sites to sell the site at the market price. In such cases, a consultation shall be held with the owner of the site subject to request for sale for at least three months before filing a request for sale.” As such, such consultation may not be held after filing a lawsuit claiming a right by exercising the right to demand sale. In addition, the aforementioned “consultation” means a specific and substantial consultation. In determining whether a project operator satisfies the requirements for such consultation, the project operator who has obtained approval for the housing construction project plan shall comprehensively take into account the sale price or calculation thereof, whether the project operator has made efforts to hold the consultation, and what attitude the owner of the site appears in the consultation, and the project operator shall bear the burden of proof to meet the requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da965, Aug. 26, 296, 2014).