logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.17 2014가단501141
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs asserted that they purchase 40,958/3,190 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the defendant's husband D (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") from each of the plaintiff 60,000,000 won per 60,000 won per son.

On February 25, 2008, the Plaintiffs, Defendant, and D discussed the payment method of the purchase price and concluded a sales contract with the content that D shall substitute the construction price to be paid to the Plaintiffs for the purchase price and pay the remainder of the purchase price in cash (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

According to the above agreement, on March 31, 2008, Plaintiff A remitted a total of KRW 25.6 million to the account designated by the Defendant or the Defendant, or to D’s account, including remitting a total of KRW 10 million to the down payment of the sales contract on March 31, 2008. Plaintiff A paid KRW 49 million in total as sales price in lieu of the purchase price.

In addition, on February 5, 2008, Plaintiff B transferred a total of KRW 90,600,000 to the Defendant account as the purchase price, including the payment of KRW 6.5 million to the down payment of the purchase price, and KRW 37,150,000 of the construction price claim against D was paid as total KRW 127,750,00 in lieu of the purchase price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on February 25, 2008 with respect to each of the 4,958/3,190 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

2. The witness D’s testimony cannot be trusted as it is, and the witness D’s testimony alone is insufficient to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to trade the instant real estate by specifying the purchase price and its shares as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Furthermore, in light of the age, social experience, and the amount of purchase price, etc. of the plaintiffs, the sales contract was concluded orally without preparing a sales contract.

arrow