beta
Text
1. In this Court, the Plaintiffs’ additional claims and the Plaintiff Mine Integrated Management Co., Ltd. were reduced.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. B filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. to seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration (including the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2) with respect to the 1/2 shares of the 41 unit apartment among the 5-story apartment units of Gangnam-gun C 1, 2, and each of the 5-story apartment units (including the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2), but the conciliation was concluded in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2009Na14518).
B. According to the above protocol, the Defendant and the Intervenor D jointly pay KRW 190 million to B, and if the above money is not paid until July 31, 2010, the Defendant is entitled to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the agreement on May 28, 2008 with respect to the share of KRW 1/2 of the above 41 apartment units.
C. B around June 2010, around 2010, transferred the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the above 41 apartment units to the Mine Integrated Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the above assignment notification reached the Defendant around that time.
As Defendant and D did not pay KRW 190 million to B until July 31, 2010, the Plaintiff Company completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/2 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “share No. 1”) among the 19 households and 106, 205, 208, 509, 511, and 512 of the total number of 25 households listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “share No. 1”), and the Plaintiff Company completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “second real estate”), 1/2 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2, and 1/2 shares (hereinafter “share No. 2”), respectively, due to the cause No. 2084, May 28, 2004.
[Reasons for Recognition] 1, 4, 12, 13, Eul evidence 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim No. 1-B of the lawsuit regarding the division of the right to benefit from use is legitimate.
subsection (c), c.