logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2013.10.11 2012가단19691
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff need to establish an access road (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) on the 154 square meters of the total area of 1167 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land before the instant partition”) owned by the Defendant, in order to construct a house (hereinafter “instant house”) on the ground of 659 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Bosung-gun, Masan-gun.

B. The Plaintiff agreed to hold a negotiation on the opening of the access road of this case to F, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, and the Defendant entrusted ASEAN with the negotiations.

C. F and G agree to pay KRW 15,000,000 with respect to the establishment of the access road in this case, and KRW 10,000,000 to G around August 1, 201, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000 to G around August 6, 201.

On August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff conducted a current survey on the part regarding the access road of this case. On August 18, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a land use consent from the Defendant, and obtained a building permit on September 15, 201.

E. On September 28, 2011, the Plaintiff conducted a divisional survey on the instant access road through the building office. On October 5, 2011, the instant access road was divided from the land before the instant partition and became 154 square meters prior to the Chungcheongnam-gun, Bosung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Inasmuch as F and G, the Plaintiff’s agent, concluded a sales contract of KRW 15,00,00 with respect to the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the said sale. 2) Defendant F and G did not enter into a sales contract for the instant land, but only the Defendant received KRW 15,000,000 in return for the consent to use the instant land.

B. As to whether a sales contract was concluded for the instant land, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, each of the testimony of the Health Team, the witness F, G, and H.

arrow