logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.09.19 2015가단47155 (1)
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the defendant on March 28, 2008 with regard to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") with the purchase price of KRW 40,00,000 (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case").

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, based on the above sales contract, seeks the defendant to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each real estate of this case on the ground of the above sales contract, and the defendant asserts that the sales contract of this case was made for the purpose of showing his own children and made a false representation, and thus invalid by false false representation

In full view of the facts without dispute over the plaintiff, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 11, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the plaintiff's newspaper, it is reasonable to view that the defendant entered into the sales contract of this case with the plaintiff by using each of the lands of this case, and thus, the sales contract of this case constitutes false declaration of conspiracy. Thus, the sales contract of this case

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract for KRW 30,00,000 for the instant real estate on March 28, 2008, and paid KRW 30,000 as the down payment on the date of the contract, although the sales contract was prepared, the date of the contract was prepared retroactively at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and was not concluded on March 28, 2008.

(2) On October 14, 2008, the Defendant issued a receipt that the Plaintiff received KRW 40,000,000 from the purchase price for each of the instant land. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid the full purchase price of KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff appears to have not paid the purchase price under the instant sales contract, considering the following:

(1) The down payment shall be thirty thousand won.

arrow