logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014나62489
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: “The plaintiff does not appear to have paid the above purchase price to the defendant; according to the contract of this case, the defendant does not appear to have paid the above purchase price directly to the defendant; according to the contract of this case, according to the contract of this case, the defendant shall be deemed to have paid the above purchase price to the defendant; and the defendant shall be deemed to have made the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the first and fourth parts from the fifth to the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

【The part of the court below's conclusion that, even if a real estate transfer contract cannot be deemed to have been concluded directly with the defendant, if there is an agreement omitting intermediate registration between the first transferor and the second transferor and the last transferee as to the intermediate omission registration, the last transferee can directly file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with the first transferor. Thus, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim with the plaintiff on the ground that there was an agreement omitting intermediate registration between the plaintiff and the defendant.

In full view of all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to omit the intermediate registration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow