beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall receive on November 3, 2014 from the Cheongju District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a pre-sale agreement with Defendant A on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed each of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership under the Cheongju District Court No. 14627, Nov. 3, 2014.
B. Defendant B’s claim for reimbursement amounting to KRW 70 million against Defendant A as the claim amount.
On July 28, 2005, the provisional attachment order was issued by this court by 2015Kadan1849 upon filing an application for provisional attachment of the right to claim ownership transfer on the basis of the registration of the provisional attachment, and the provisional attachment registration was completed on July 28, 2005, such as the indication of each provisional attachment right stated in the separate attachment list.
C. On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant A rescinded an agreement on the purchase and sale of the instant real estate.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant real estate, and Defendant B, the provisional seizure right holder who attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant real estate and completed the additional registration, is obligated to accept the procedure for cancellation registration of the right to make a registration.
Although Defendant B alleged that the rescission of the pre-purchase agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a false declaration of conspiracy, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.