beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's selective claims added in the trial are dismissed.
2.(a)
The monetary payment of the judgment of the court of first instance is part.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: addition to the third party 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the third party 1th party 3th party 1th party 1th party 1th party 1th party 1th party 3th party 3th party 3th party 3th party 11th party 20th party 7th party 4th party 7th party 4th party 7th party 4th party 4th party 13th party 4th party 4th party 13th party 13th party 13th party 4th party 13th party 13th party 13th party 10th party 20th party 1
In addition, the Defendant asserts that the lessee of the lease contract dated June 26, 2002 and the changed lease contract of July 3, 2010 on the land of this case is not the Defendant, but G who is the nominal owner under each contract (Evidence A4 and Evidence B 4). Thus, the Defendant asserts that the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and the obligation to deliver the building of this case under the transfer agreement of this case is G.
Where an actor who enters into a contract has done a juristic act in the name of another person, as to whom the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract, the intent of the actor and the other party shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consistent intent, and where the intent of the actor and the other party are in accord, the other party shall be determined by whether the actor and the title holder, among the parties to the contract, understand the other party as the party to the contract in accordance with the detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content
(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998; 2003Da44059 delivered on December 12, 2003, etc.). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, and 3, the defendant shall be established on June 20, 2002 and registered on June 25, 2002.