(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나2539 | 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) 울산지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나2539

건물명도 등

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D to purchase the instant building and its site. D had completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant building on August 8, 2001. On the same day, D had completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Plaintiff on the same day, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer for the said building.

B. As D did not complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the site of the instant building, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the refund of the purchase price against F, the heir of the deceased D (Death October 1, 2005) under the Ulsan District Court 2012Kadan17379, and sentenced that “F shall pay KRW 89,500,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time with the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building by the Plaintiff.”

C. Accordingly, F appealed with the Ulsan District Court 2013Na4906, however, the said court rendered a judgment that “F shall pay KRW 89,500,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time upon receipt of the transfer registration procedure for the instant building from the Plaintiff on June 18, 2012 (the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint) and simultaneously upon receipt of the transfer registration procedure for the cancellation of ownership on the instant building from the Plaintiff.” The final appeal was filed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da65311, but the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 5, Eul's 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant occupies the building of this case owned by the plaintiff without any title, the plaintiff has a duty to deliver the building to the plaintiff.

The main text of Article 548(1) of the Civil Code provides that when a contract is terminated, each party bears the obligation to return the other party to the same condition as the contract did not exist.

참조조문

-민법 제548조 제1항

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.09.20 2015가단11143

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.10 2018가합593505

-울산지방법원 2017.01.18 2016가단14224

-춘천지방법원 2015.10.06 2014가단33096

-대법원 2014.10.30 2013다53939