beta
Text
1. The defendant is on the ground of sale on August 20, 2005 with respect to the land size of Pyeongtaek-si 2,415 square meters to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, according to the instant sales contract (Evidence A No. 1), on August 20, 2005, the buyer who entered into a sales contract on Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant on August 20, 2005 is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have the right to demand the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, and thus, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it did not have the standing to sue.
However, in a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to standing to sue, who is asserted as a person responsible for performance, has the standing to sue, and the person who is alleged as a person responsible for performance has the standing to sue, and whether the plaintiff is a person responsible for performance or not is a person responsible for performance
2. 청구원인에 대한 판단 ⑴ 원고는 이 사건 청구로써, 원고와 피고가 2005. 8. 20. 피고 소유의 평택시 C 답 2,415㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 토지’라고 한다)에 관하여 매매계약을 체결한 후 원고가 피고에게 매매대금 합계 1억 5,300만 원을 모두 지급하였으므로, 피고는 원고에게 이 사건 토지에 관하여 위 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 주장하고, 피고는 이에 대하여 이 사건 토지에 관한 위 매매계약은 피고의 누나 E과 그 시모(媤母)인 F이 피고의 위임이나 허락 없이 무단으로 체결한 것으로서 원인무효의 것이므로 피고는 원고에게 위 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 없다는 취지로 주장한다.
Therefore, the results of the fact-finding conducted on the head of office and the head of office of the branch office and the head of the Dong Innju City from among the public health department, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 (including each number), witness G, H, and D's testimony, and from the fact-finding conducted on the head of office and the head of the Dong Innju City.