logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.09.06 2016가단80011
가등기말소
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the land listed in the [Attachment 1] List, Defendant B shall be registered office of the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon Branch Office.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 22, 2008 with respect to the land listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “instant land”), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on June 3, 2008.

B. On August 1, 2011, Defendant C entered into a sales contract for the instant land with the Plaintiff Cho Jong-man E, and paid KRW 39 million as the sales price. Defendant B, who is a child of Defendant C, established the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership under the name of Gwangju District Court No. 5408, which was the receipt of the former Family Court’s registration office for the instant land.

C. Since E did not establish the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land even after receiving the purchase price, the Defendants demanded the return of the purchase price, and E returned KRW 39 million to the Defendants.

At present, the Defendants currently possess the attached Form 2, which is attached to the land indicated in paragraph (1) on the ground of the instant land, such as

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the sales contract for the instant land concluded between Defendant C and E was rescinded upon the request of the Defendants by E to return the sales price.

As such, Defendant B is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed on August 1, 201 by the receipt No. 5408 of the receipt of August 1, 2011, and the Defendants are obliged to leave the building of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow