beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the defendants' new arguments at the trial of the court of first instance under the 10th session of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation of this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff to take over the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not obtain I’s consent or consent in acquiring the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land from extreme Co., Ltd., and that the said right to claim ownership transfer was not satisfied.
On the other hand, the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership due to the sale of real estate is an effect of sale aimed at the transfer of a real right, and the seller bears the duty to transfer the property right that the seller bears, and according to trust relationship with the process of performance. Thus, the transferee who takes over the right to claim the transfer registration from the buyer cannot claim against the seller for the performance of the transfer registration due to the reason of the transfer of ownership if the seller does not consent to the transfer. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the right to claim the transfer registration due to the sale is restricted by the nature of the right and the consent or consent of the debtor is required. Thus, unlike the ordinary transfer of assignment, notification to the transferor does not bring an opposing power against the debtor and there is opposing power to obtain the consent or consent of the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67653, Mar. 10, 2005). However, according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s statement as provided in the evidence No. 3