logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나26043
소유권말소등기
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer, such as the entries in the purport of the claim, to the Defendant on the ground of sale and purchase on December 14, 2007 (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).

(2) The instant real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) drafted as of December 14, 2007 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the contracting party to the contract was paid KRW 4 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 36 million is paid on January 4, 2008. However, even though the Defendant, including the down payment of KRW 4 million, paid up to 40 million, the purchase price of KRW 40 million.

B. The husband of the Plaintiff, G, and E is G, E, and E is the husband of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff FE is residing in the Republic of Korea, and G is residing in the United States.

C. A debt settlement agreement between the defendant and G is 1) The defendant residing in the United States of America as a U.S. national, and the defendant is 420,000 U.S. dollars for G around 206.

(2) The term “U.S. real estate” (hereinafter referred to as “U.S. real estate”) was owned by the Defendant at the time of the repayment of the loan.

(3) The agreement on debt settlement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was made orally with G to transfer B to G.

(2) Around January 2009, the Defendant and G entered the content of the instant agreement in the form of a sales contract concerning the U.S. real estate. At the time, G, one’s own Dong and the Plaintiff’s discount, requested to incorporate E residing in Korea as a co-contractor, and the Defendant entered G and E as a co-contractor.

In addition, both parties recognized that G and E had already paid not less than 460,000 of the purchase price in the contract.

The defendant 1 of the GE's counterpart lawsuit shall be the real estate of the United States.

arrow