logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.18 2017가단29442
부동산소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2017, C, the Plaintiff’s agent, purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant forest”) in the purchase price of KRW 134 million, but the down payment of KRW 32 million was made at the time of the contract to pay the remainder of KRW 12 million on August 6, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). D signed a sales contract with the Defendant’s agent’s name stated in the seller’s proxy column, and D affixed E’s seal on the E’s name.

B. The Plaintiff paid 30 million won out of the down payment to E on the day of the instant sales contract.

C. Meanwhile, from February 13, 2017 to October 16, 2017 after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff transferred approximately KRW 400,00 to the Defendant’s deposit account eight times as interest on the instant forest land from February 13 to October 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was concluded with E, the defendant's representative, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest of this case. Family E has no power to represent the defendant.

Even if the contract of this case entered into between the plaintiff and E is ratified later, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. We examine the determination as to the existence of the power of representation against the Defendant of the sales contract of this case. The name of E is indicated in the seller’s representative column of the sales contract of this case, and D’s seal is affixed to the above E’s name and affixed thereon.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above D or E had the power of representation granted by the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and rather, according to the purport of the witness D’s testimony and pleading, D entered into the instant sales contract prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

arrow