(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.09.29 2017가단54645

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) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.09.29 2017가단54645

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 190,000,000 and its amount from May 11, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty C in the purchase price of KRW 650 million (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”), and the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 90 million out of its own charges to the Defendant. The KRW 100 million was replaced by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s separate D real estate investment case with KRW 100 million that the Plaintiff agreed to receive settlement from the Defendant, and the remaining KRW 135 million was intended to receive a loan from the financial institution. The Defendant unilaterally completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s sole name, and the Defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to shares of KRW 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not conclude such agreement.

B. Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment, each of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 11, and 12 can be acknowledged that the Defendant and one other agree to purchase the instant real estate from Nonparty C for the purchase price of KRW 650 million on October 11, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Defendant solely for the instant real estate on February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 90 million to the Defendant, including KRW 40 million on October 11, 2016, KRW 50 million on January 17, 2017, and KRW 90 million on January 17, 2017. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a joint purchaser of the said sales contract, and even if so, the Plaintiff cannot seek the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant directly, the Plaintiff’s primary claim for ownership transfer cannot be considered without any other reasons.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is the cause of this part of the claim.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2016.06.17 2015나10449

-서울북부지방법원 2010.11.18 2009가단61053

-대전고등법원 2015.09.03 2013나5129

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.7.18. 선고 2013가합101479 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2016.12.07 2015가합25406