beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is about the plaintiff's 470m2 in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff is liable to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer from the Defendant on May 22, 2013 that he/she purchased the land of this case 470 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on May 22, 2013.
2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion
A. The defendant asserted that the contract of this case was not paid KRW 45 million among the actual sales price of this case, and KRW 160 million from the plaintiff, and the remaining KRW 45 million. Since the plaintiff's obligation to pay the balance and the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership are in concurrent performance, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to his claim until he is paid the balance of KRW 45 million from the plaintiff.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the sales price of the instant sales contract was KRW 160 million, and that the Defendant paid the above sales price in full.
B. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) around May 22, 2013, determined the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 160 million; and (b) concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) stating that the remainder KRW 50 million on the date of the contract and the payment of KRW 110 million on June 22, 2013 on the date of the contract. As long as the formation of the disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the relevant disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny its contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005); and (c) the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deny the contents of the instant sales contract; and (d) it is clear and acceptable to deem otherwise.
Rather, evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5.