(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.05.20 2015가단35392

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.05.20 2015가단35392

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant’s sales contract was based on March 7, 2013 on the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to B.

B. B, in order to secure the payment of the above loan obligation, on March 7, 2013, made the Defendant conclude a sales contract on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Plaintiff on March 7, 2013.

The above contract for sale is called "the seller, the buyer," and the sale price is written as paid on March 7, 2013, which is the date of preparation of the contract, and the plaintiff and the defendant affix their seals respectively.

C. The Defendant awarded to B the fifth building construction contract, including the instant real estate, four units (Nos. 101, 202, 301, and 402) including the instant real estate, as the repayment of the construction cost. D.

On September 25, 2013, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to view that the defendant agreed to transfer ownership to B for the purpose of paying the construction price, and that the defendant agreed to transfer ownership to the plaintiff at the request of B.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff according to the above sales contract.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that although there was a pre-contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for payment in kind, there was no fact that there was no pre-contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there was no fact that there was no

However, as seen earlier, insofar as the Defendant agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.09.16 2014가단10044

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.08.12 2016가단7981

-수원지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나12420

-수원지방법원안산지원 2014.02.13 2013가단1099

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.08.24 2015가단35408