logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
춘천지방법원 2017.09.27 2016나53774
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of this case, shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the court’s explanation on this case shall be based on the dismissal of “in lieu of payment” from 6th to 7th following the fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance as “in order to secure payment,” and the addition of the attached list of this judgment is the same as that of the judgment of

2. The plaintiff's assertion in the appellate court argues that the defendant cannot be deemed to have purchased the building of this case from the plaintiff in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence that the defendant paid the sales price while purchasing the building of this case; (b) the plaintiff paid interest on the first-class collateral security obligation established on the building of this case; and (c) the defendant paid the plaintiff's de facto spouse a total of KRW 2,000,000 as the rent.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including a serial number), ① from August 2012 to July 2013, 2012, the amount equivalent to KRW 4,500,000 to KRW 30,000 per month under the name of "D interest," "A (D)" or "A deposit," was remitted to the defendant, and around August 2013, the amount was remitted to KRW 30,000 as "D principal," ② on December 10, 2015, the amount of provisional payment paid by the defendant to the plaintiff was 890,142,920, but the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to request the return thereof to the plaintiff, ③ the plaintiff and the representative members agreed not to pay the amount of 00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership to the Defendant regarding the instant building was done as against D.

arrow