beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff purchased the instant land in KRW 3 million and paid all the purchase price, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant land to the plaintiff.
On October 20, 2010, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of D, a nominal holder on the registry of the instant land, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and claimed the Plaintiff’s claim if the Plaintiff received the purchase price from the Plaintiff and delivered all of the purchase price to E.
2. The judgment unit No. 1 (sales Contract) includes the name of the Defendant in the seller’s column and the seal is affixed thereto, and the land is delivered as of October 20, 2010 and the down payment is one million won.
Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, D entered the registration of ownership transfer on February 19, 1941 on the land of this case on the ground of sale and purchase on February 13, 1941, and the deposit certificate that the defendant deposited the above money in E on July 24, 2013, stating that "E received the above money as the sale price of the land of this case", and the defendant delivered the above deposit certificate to the plaintiff, D loss, and the defendant is not a lineal descendant of D, and it is recognized that D was not a lineal descendant.
In light of the above facts and the defendant's argument, it is insufficient to recognize that "the plaintiff and the defendant did not perform the contract, although the court ordered the plaintiff to specify the date of the contract of this case) on the date of 2019 (or around October 20, 2010)" was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. Rather, according to the evidence and the whole purport of the arguments submitted, according to the evidence and the whole purport of oral argument, the defendant was merely represented by Eul as the inheritor around October 20, 2010, and the plaintiff was also aware.