beta
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 judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of “Defendant B” of the third 17th 17th 17th 3th 17th 17th 17th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part is cited pursuant
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded by the deceiving Co-Defendant B of H and the first instance trial, and the Defendant lawfully revoked by the Plaintiff. The Defendant concluded the second sale contract concerning the instant real estate with knowledge of the fact that the said first sale contract was concluded by deception, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Therefore, the Defendant ought to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer.
B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 9-1 and No. 2, the first instance court’s co-defendant B promised to purchase the real estate of this case in actual amount of KRW 440 million differently from the content of the above sales contract (a contract deposit shall be paid KRW 40 million, and the collateral obligation of this real estate shall be acquired and the remainder shall be paid KRW 200 million, and the remainder shall be paid to the Plaintiff in collusion with H with the said contract deposit. The above B is difficult to pay the purchase price at KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff. If the title of the real estate is transferred first, it is difficult to obtain a loan as security and use it as business fund, and the remaining amount of the sale price shall be paid before October 2016. However, the fact that B was transferred with the ownership registration on June 8, 2016, but it can be acknowledged that it actually did not have any capacity to pay the purchase price as above.
Thus, the 1st sales contract of this case is due to the fraud of the above B and H, and thus, the plaintiff's revocation.