beta
Text
1. The part of the claim for cancellation of registration of the establishment registration near the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed;
2. The separate sheet shall be set out.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to C on January 24, 2011, but on November 25, 201, the Plaintiff promoted the said money between C and C on November 25, 2011 (hereinafter “instant project”).
(2) On March 5, 2011, the Plaintiff made a total of 300 million won payment around that time, including the transfer of the right to sell a commercial building newly built as the instant project between C and C on March 15, 201. The Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to C’s account on March 15, 201.
However, C refused to transfer the above right of sale, but only returned 150 million won out of 300 million won received from the plaintiff.
3) On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with C for a payment order claiming a total of KRW 490 million (investment KRW 340 million in the purchase price of purchase rights of KRW 150 million in the purchase price of purchase rights) and interest for delay. The instant case was transferred to this court as of March 24, 2014 due to C’s objection, but the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit on July 29, 2014 and completed the lawsuit. (B) On May 12, 2014, the instant real estate sale and purchase contract entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 335 million in the purchase price of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
() On May 13, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer, such as the entry in Section 2-B of Disposition No. 2. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry in Section 1-3 through 6, 2-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. We examine the validity of the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to whether the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was lawful.