logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.02.20 2018나55244
소유권이전등기 등 말소청구의 소
Text

1. The appeal by Defendant C limited liability company is dismissed.

2. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) I, J, K, and L, and this Court.

Reasons

The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the part concerning the plaintiff and the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

In addition, the following shall be added to the 11th 18th 18th son of the first instance judgment:

Although Defendant J, K, and L asserted that “The said Defendants succeeded to the mortgage, provisional attachment, and provisional disposition established on the instant 4 real estate and paid the balance of the sales contract in lieu of the said Defendants. Therefore, it shall be deemed that all the sales amount prescribed in the sales contract for the said real estate has to be paid.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the said Defendants’ assertion, the following is added to the end of the 20th half of the 11th judgment of the first instance court.”

Defendant I, J, K, and L asserts to the effect that “In the event that the down payment and intermediate payment are paid in accordance with the sales contract for real estate 4 and 5 of this case, the registration in the name of the said Defendants is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship.” However, the said assertion itself is premised on the fact that the full payment of the purchase price was not made. However, as seen earlier, there is a special agreement between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants to complete the registration of ownership transfer prior to the payment of the purchase price, as seen earlier, the said assertion is not correct, and the following is added to the 11th 20th following the first instance judgment of the first instance.

『《반소청구에 대한 판단 주위적 청구에 관한 판단 피고 I, J, K, L는 이 사건 4, 5 부동산에 대한 매매계약에서 정한 매매대금을 모두 지급하였음을 전제로 주위적청구취지 기재와 같은 내용의 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 청구하고 있다.

However, as seen earlier, the above Defendants paid all the sales amount stipulated in the sales contract for the instant 4 and 5 real estate.

arrow