beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from June 14, 2014 to July 4, 2014, and on July 5, 2014.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, C, and D brothers and sisters died on November 10, 2010.
B. On September 11, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant with respect to the F apartment Nos. 407, 306 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) in Gwangjin-gu, Gwangju-si, which was the owner of the network E, based on the consultation division.
C. On June 12, 2013, based on the decision of provisional attachment No. 2013Kahap101, the registration of provisional attachment was completed with respect to the real estate in this case by the creditor, the claimed amount of KRW 200,000,000.
[Reasons for Recognition] Determination as to the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 7 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 14-1, and the ground for claim as a whole of the pleadings
A. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, C, and D brothers and sisters died on November 10, 2010, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the Defendant on September 11, 2012 on the instant real estate owned by the network E was based on the facts as seen earlier. In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 3 (in the absence of dispute as to the part of the Defendant’s seal imprint, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, and the Defendant’s testimony and arguments were examined as follows; on May 2, 2011, the Defendant consented with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant; and on sale of the instant real estate, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 200,000,000 out of the proceeds from sale to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Any witness witness testimony contrary to this, is not believed.
B. Meanwhile, in cases where a juristic act was attached to a subsidiary, if it should be viewed as a condition of suspension if the subsidiary does not perform its obligation unless the facts indicated in the subsidiary have occurred, it shall be deemed as a condition of suspension, and not only when the facts indicated have occurred but also there have occurred any objection.