(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.02.17 2013나928 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산고등법원 2016.02.17 2013나928

매매대금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), 839 billion won, against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

The principal lawsuit, counterclaim and intervenor's lawsuit shall be deemed together.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (other than the proviso of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) is the same, except that the second part of the judgment of the first instance stating that “ March 15, 201” is “ March 10, 201,” and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The main issues of the instant case and the judgment thereon

A. The principal assertion by the parties asserts that the Plaintiff was a title trust to the Intervenor, and that the real right to dispose of the instant real estate was the Plaintiff, and that the seller under the instant sales contract was the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant and the Intervenor was the party to the instant sales contract, as the real owner of the instant real estate, and that there was no title trust as alleged by the Plaintiff.

B. The main issues of the instant lawsuit, counterclaim, and participation are whether the seller of the instant sales contract is a person, i.e., who is the seller of the instant sales contract, can recognize the fact of title trust, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and first, we examine this point.

C. In full view of the following facts: (a) whether title trust was registered on the instant real estate; (b) the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings in some testimonys made by witnesses B ( Intervenors) of the first instance trial, on June 10, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate was made on the ground of sale in G, a mother of the Plaintiff’s small mother, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was made on the ground of the Plaintiff’s promise; (c) the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 19, 2009 on the instant real estate; and (d) the Plaintiff kept the receipt for the registration expenses until now.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2016.04.21 2015나54127

-서울고등법원 2013.08.21 2013나4137

-서울고등법원 2018.03.09 2017나2054464

-의정부지방법원 2020.5.28. 선고 2019나207289 판결

-부산고등법원 2016.03.17 2015나54981