logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가단5180313
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendant’s sale of real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff is based on the sale on June 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on June 10, 2015 to purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 718,130,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the Plaintiff succeeds to KRW 350,000 of bank loans out of the sales price, and may recognize the fact that the remainder of the sales price has been paid. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion of false conspiracy, the plaintiff and the defendant alleged that "the regular sales contract of the real estate of this case is concluded through future negotiations, but the first priority is to allow the plaintiff to reside in the real estate of this case, and the sales contract of this case is concluded formally in order to prevent the defendant from selling the real estate of this case to a third party before the conclusion of the regular sales contract." Therefore, since the sales contract of this case becomes null and void as a false conspiracy, the defendant has no obligation to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer because the contract of this case becomes invalid as the contract of this case was concluded by the parties, and the other party has agreed to transfer the property of this case to the other party and pay the price thereof (Article 563 of the Civil Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the sales contract of this case is valid as a contract under which the parties agreed to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case and pay the price to the other party, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant concluded the contract formally by mutual collusion without intent to perform obligations under the sales contract of this case.

(b).

arrow