beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall provide the plaintiff A with the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list.
Reasons
1. The reason why the court uses this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of Paragraph (1) (No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 11 through No. 3, No. 18).
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the above facts in light of the determination on the cause of the claim for registration of transfer of ownership, the Plaintiffs who are homeless persons who have resided in the instant rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of sale for sale in lots are subject to the Rental Housing Act (the relevant provisions are as shown in
(2) Each of the instant apartments was established on February 23, 2018, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and each of the instant apartments on February 23, 2018. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to implement each of the procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant apartments on the grounds of the aforementioned sales contract. (2) The Defendant’s defense against the Defendant is insufficient to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim for the registration of transfer of ownership until the remainder of the purchase price after deducting lease deposit from the purchase price of each of the instant apartments is paid, as the remainder of the purchase price after deducting lease deposit from the purchase price of each of the instant apartments.
In regard to this, the plaintiffs re-claimed that they offset the defendant's claim for the remainder of the purchase price against the defendant's claim for reimbursement, which has been acquired by subrogation of the secured obligation of each of the instant mortgages.
As seen earlier, a sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant for the conversion of each apartment of this case was concluded on February 23, 2018.