logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.31 2018나2017172
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims that were exchanged in this court are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for cases where the court finds or adds any statement as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Attachment] Part] Part II 14 of the second page 14 and below "Defendant C (name F before name)" or "Defendant C" as "Defendant".

Defendant B’s “Defendant B” in Chapter 16. Each of the “Defendant B” appears to be “B.”

[Supplementary Parts] Part 6 (Supplementary Part) 15 (Supplementary Part)

subsection (1) shall be added.

d. Land after the division under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

1) AP, AR, AS, ATS, AU, and AW were sold under the agreement of the three parties of this case, and the settlement of the purchase price was made between the Plaintiff and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) for each transaction.

(AT land was sold at a voluntary auction procedure) around October 11, 2013, the Defendant sold L land at KRW 350,000,000 to B and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of BA. On June 10, 2015, BB and B had sold AV land at KRW 352,00,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of BB and BC. 3) B and B had filed an application for a voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security with respect to Q land on March 28, 2018. Since the lawsuit was filed, the Defendant concluded a contract on September 1, 2018 between BF and Qu land at KRW 1,50,000,00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of BB and BC.

[No. 6.16. [No. 4, B, and 7] is added to the grounds for recognition.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant three parties agreed to settle the existing partnership relationship through the instant agreement, and the instant agreement still remains effective.

arrow