logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.06.17 2020나2004186
약정금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The first instance court at the Gu office.

Reasons

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiffs' primary claim against the defendant even if the result of pleading in the court of first instance was neglected.

Therefore, this court's reasoning, including the allegations of the parties added in the trial, shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination by supplementing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated below,

2. Additional determination

A. The key issue is that the Defendant (the Defendant comprehensively succeeded to the status of the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant”), regardless of whether before or after the succession, received the registration of transfer of ownership from Q to the instant land within the instant project site, constitutes a subsequent purchaser of the instant business right transfer contract, and thus, constitutes the subject of revocation of fraudulent act under the Civil Act.

The purport of the assertion is that Q acquired the ownership of the instant land, including the instant land, by taking over all rights under the sales contract of the instant land, including the right to claim the transfer of ownership from P to P, and that the Defendant obtained a benefit from the transfer of ownership of the instant land by reason of the trust contract, which constitutes a case where Q acquired the right to the instant land acquired by means of fraudulent act between P and Q, and even if the extent of the Defendant’s transfer was not entirely subject to the transfer of the instant transfer contract, even if it was not entirely subject to the transfer of the instant transfer contract, P is transferred to Q, and at least as the ownership was transferred to the Defendant.

arrow