logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.15 2012나20236
소유권이전등기
Text

1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant B shall be revoked, including any selective claims added in the trial.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court should explain about this part of the judgment on the claim against Defendant A is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the “Article 18(2)” of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “Article 18-2” as “Article 18-2,” and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the housing construction project plan of this case was approved, and then the plaintiff attached Table 2-B between the defendant B and the defendant B.

Although an agreement on purchase of the real estate stated in the port was made for at least three months, the Defendant B was obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale as of January 6, 201 or September 11, 2013, because it did not reach an agreement and exercised the right to demand sale on January 6, 201 and September 11, 2013.

B. As a requirement for exercising the right to demand sale under Article 18-2(1) of the Housing Act, “consultation” subject to a consultation for a period of not less than three months shall be deemed to mean a specific and substantial consultation between a project operator and a housing site owner. Barring any special circumstance, determination of whether a project operator who obtained approval for the housing construction project plan satisfies such requirements shall comprehensively take into account the following: (a) whether the project operator provided a sale price or a reasonable ground for the calculation thereof; (b) whether the project operator made efforts to proceed with the consultation; and (c) how the housing site owner provided an attitude in consultation; and (d)

[See Supreme Court Decision 201Da101315, 2011Da101322, May 9, 2013] With respect to the instant case, the health class, A’s evidence 1 through 3, A’s 6, 7, 19, 20, and 22, A’s evidence 11-2, A’s evidence 14, and 21-1, 2, and 18-1, and B’s evidence 18.

arrow