(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.11.05 2019나30126

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.11.05 2019나30126

원인무효로인한소유권이전등기말소청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance is deemed to be evidence submitted by this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the second 12th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance read " May 21, 2018" as " May 21, 2017." The second 4th 1st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the details of the Defendant’s repayment on behalf of the Plaintiff is the seller’s performance of the remainder KRW 100 million, and that the Defendant’s performance of the obligation to pay the remainder of this case cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s performance of the obligation to pay the remainder of this case, even if the Defendant voluntarily performed the obligation to pay the remainder, unless the Plaintiff or his agent

According to the following facts: (a) evidence No. 3, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 2 of the first instance trial witness C, and the purport of the testimony and pleading of the first instance trial witness C, the Plaintiff’s son entered into the instant sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (b) the said C and D representing the Defendant agreed to substitute the Defendant for the payment of each obligation owed by the Plaintiff or C (in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, according to the special agreement, the auction cost and guarantee insurance premium for each of the instant real estate are stated to be borne by the Plaintiff as the seller), and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant paid the total amount of 100 million won of the obligation owed by the Plaintiff or C on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is true.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.01.30 2014나2010968

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.14 2017나78812

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.06 2020나72012

-서울고등법원 2018.07.13 2017나2062052

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.28 2019나61924