logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.08.11 2020가단113464
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff and Ga.

The Office of Government of the District Court with respect to subparagraph C of the D Building E in the House of Government.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) sold to the Defendant, the purchase price of D Building E, 199,000,000 (a contract price of KRW 10,000,000); and (b) sold F, non-governmental, and KRW 185,00,000 (a contract price of KRW 10,000,000) each of the above real property (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”); and (c) paid any balance by having the Defendant extinguished the debt of H’s collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage debt of this case”); (d) each of the instant real property (hereinafter “each of the instant real property”); and (e) paid any balance by having the Defendant pay the debt of H’s collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage debt of this case”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the instant real property, and demanded the Defendant to extinguish the instant collateral security obligation. The Defendant immediately decided to extinguish the instant collateral security obligation on a monthly or commercial day (No. 10 No. 2). However, the Plaintiff did not perform the obligation (No. 10 No. 2).

C. After that, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extinguish several obligations with respect to the instant collateral security, and the Defendant, on February 23, 2020, committed an undertaking to the Plaintiff to complete the sale of each of the instant real estate by March 6, 2020. In this regard, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of performance that “I will assume legal responsibilities when the said undertaking is not performed.”

On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract would be terminated on the ground of the late payment delay of the remaining obligation to pay the remainder, which was to substitute for the extinguishment of the instant collateral security obligation (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Evidence Nos. 9 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant delayed the performance of the obligation to pay the remainder under the instant sales contract, which was to substitute for the extinguishment of the obligation to pay the collateral security interest.

arrow