beta
Text
1. All the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the conjunctive claim added at the trial are dismissed.
2. Appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments with respect to the conjunctive counterclaims which the defendant added in the appellate trial, and therefore, it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On October 21, 2015, "No. 2, 5, and 6" in Part 3, No. 101, No. 101, No. 4, No. 17-18, No. 5, and No. 9, No. 11, of the first instance judgment of the first instance court of the first instance, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of co-owner's share of the entire co-owner's share of the co-owner's share of the second instance court of the second instance of the fifth, No. 5, No. 14, “No. 2, 5, and 6, No. 7, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, 12, and No. 15 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court of the second instance of the second instance of the second instance of the second instance of the second instance.
3. Judgment on the conjunctive counterclaim
A. The gist of the defendant's claim is that the obligation to take over the secured obligation of the right to collateral security and the obligation to take over the secured obligation of the real estate No. 2 through 4 of this case with respect to the real estate No. 1 of this case is in a quid pro quo relationship, so long as the obligation to take over the secured obligation of the real estate No. 1 of this case is not provided with each other, it cannot be deemed to have reached a delay of performance. Therefore, even if both parties failed to perform the obligation to take over the secured obligation of the real estate No. 1,
As can be seen, in a case where the performance becomes impossible without any cause attributable to both parties, the obligor is exempted from the duty of payment pursuant to Article 537 of the Civil Act, and the obligor cannot claim the return of the performance. Therefore, in a case where both parties did not have any payment, the contractual relationship terminates, and the performance already performed is no legal ground, and thus, can claim the return
Therefore, the defendant and D already fulfilled their duty to transfer ownership to the plaintiffs.