beta
Text
1. The defendant C is limited to the sale on January 13, 1995 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2 to the plaintiff A.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff A asserts that on January 13, 1995, the defendant C purchased the real estate listed in the annexed list 1 and 2 from the defendant C with the purchase price of KRW 6.1 million. The defendant C is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 13, 1995 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2 to Plaintiff A.
2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against Defendant D
A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) as to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2 owned by Defendant C and the real estate listed in the attached list 3 owned by Plaintiff B, the head of the Gwangju District Court of Gwangju District, the registration office of 178 on January 9, 1995, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000
B. First, in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer of ownership as to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2 against Defendant C, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case by subrogation of Defendant C, and the Defendant D asserted that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of ownership against Defendant C should be terminated by prescription inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of ownership has not been exercised for ten (10) years since it had already expired by ten (10) years from January 13, 1995, which entered into a sales contract with Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case should be dismissed (the substance is the preserved claim).