logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.14 2016가합2188
분양계약자 명의변경 절차이행청구
Text

1. The request for intervention by the independent party of this case shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant B shall provide the Plaintiff with Pyeongtaek-si H.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2015, Defendant B acquired the right to sell housing sites and commercial land designated by the head of the U.S. Armed Forces Relocation Bureau for the Republic of Korea National Defense from the head of the U.S. Armed Forces Relocation Bureau for the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant right to sell housing site”). The Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor asserted that they purchased the instant right from Defendant B.

B. On May 20, 2016, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) to purchase the land specified in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter “instant housing site”) from the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant housing site”) on the basis of the instant housing ownership (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, Byung evidence 2 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. With respect to the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s application for intervention by the independent party ex officio, the intervention by the right holder among the independent party interventions can be permitted in a case where the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and the Intervenor’s claim are deemed to be incompatible with the assertion itself. The intervention by the prevention of death may be permitted in a case where it is objectively acknowledged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the intent to harm the Intervenor through the pertinent lawsuit, and it is acknowledged that the Intervenor’s rights or legal status may be infringed upon as a result of said lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Ma814, Oct. 17, 2005). In light of the Intervenor’s assertion itself, the Intervenor and the Plaintiff cannot claim the status of the seller as the seller regardless of the date of sale prior to changing the name of the buyer, who has the right to claim a change in the name of the seller for sale on the instant housing site by reason of sale of the right to purchase and sale.

arrow