(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015가단123807

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015가단123807

매수인명의변경절차 이행청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Claim of this case

A. B around September 16, 2009, as part of the compensation for items that interfere with the incorporation into the implementation of a district land development project by the Defendant, B obtained the ownership of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant ownership”).

B. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B for the instant sales right, and paid the sales price.

C. The Plaintiff demanded B to cooperate with the Defendant in the process of changing the title of the instant water ownership, but did not comply with this.

On September 4, 2013, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant real estate, and around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,304,00 to the Defendant the contract deposit of the instant real estate sales contract under the name of B.

Therefore, B is obligated to change the buyer of the instant real estate sales contract to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant is obligated to cooperate with the change of the buyer’s name as the seller of the instant real estate sales contract. Thus, B and the Defendant must implement the procedure for change of the buyer’s name based on the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion, such as Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6-3, can be acknowledged.

Furthermore, with respect to whether the Defendant is obligated to cooperate in the change of the buyer’s name as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to cooperate in the sale contract of this case was caused by the purchase and sale contract of this case, and the Defendant, who is a third party of the purchase and sale contract of this case, naturally, cannot be said to have the obligation to cooperate with the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant is in the seller of the purchase and sale contract of this case. The real estate sales

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단223440

-울산지방법원 2017.10.26 2017가합20513

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단203470

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.10.08 2014가단11688

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가단130159