logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가단107047
가등기에기한소유권이전본등기이행의소
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the appointed party D, E, F, and G are re-written in attached Table 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the appointed parties D, E, F, and G concluded each reservation with respect to each portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet with the Defendant on the date of each pre-sale reservation listed in the same sheet.

B. Article 2 of the above pre-sale contract, which was made at the time of each pre-sale agreement, provides that the pre-sale agreement shall be deemed to have been completed as a matter of course without the Plaintiff and the designated parties’ declaration of intent to complete the sale.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since all the date of the completion of the pre-sale reservation as to the above pre-sale reservation has arrived, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of the pre-sale reservation as to each of the above dates to the plaintiff

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the claim of the plaintiff and the designated parties, other than the designated parties G, was completed by extinctive prescription, and seeks cancellation of provisional registration as a counter-claim. This is based on the argument that the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation as to each of the above sales reservations

However, as seen earlier, even if there is no separate resolution on the completion of the pre-sale agreement, each of the above pre-sale parties shall naturally be deemed to have been completed if the date of the completion of the pre-sale agreement arrives, and all of the pre-sale parties have arrived. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The claim of the plaintiff and the designated parties in the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow