(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.03.20 2018가단5166

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.03.20 2018가단5166

소유권이전등기절차 등

Text

1. The Defendant is based on an exchange contract on August 20, 2015 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with the Defendant to exchange the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). The secured debt of the right to collateral security (the instant real estate: KRW 78 million; KRW 926 square meters; KRW 926 square meters; KRW 0,000,000) established on each of the said real estate was decided to be liable and succeeded individually.

B. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the size of 926 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.

C. On the other hand, around August 27, 2015, the Defendant leased the instant real estate to Nonparty D in KRW 300,000 per monthly rent.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence Gap 3-1, 2, Gap 5, the purpose of all pleadings]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Defendant asserts that the instant exchange contract was cancelled or the instant exchange contract was cancelled on the ground of the Plaintiff’s deception or the Defendant’s mistake on the ground that the instant exchange contract was concluded due to the Plaintiff’s mistake.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to take over the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case from the plaintiff according to the exchange contract of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the exchange contract of this case was cancelled by deception of the plaintiff, non-party E, F, etc., but it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had entered into the exchange contract of this case by deception of the plaintiff, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

C. Next, the defendant is about the sale price of the real estate of this case and the conditions of succession to loans.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.09 2018나1020

-서울고등법원 2014.07.11 2013나34251

-춘천지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단72

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.23 2014가단238854

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단32224