(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.01.29 2014가단242600

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.01.29 2014가단242600

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2006, Nonparty C entered into a contract with Nonparty D for construction work of 1.2 billion won on the land (excluding any construction work other than buildings) newly built on the ground (hereinafter “the instant site”) of Hablet (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with 102 Dong (10 households) and 111 Dong Dong (15 households), 111 (10 households), and 1.2 billion won of the instant loan (excluding any construction work other than buildings), the construction work period from December 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007, by setting the construction cost to be 1.2 billion won, and the construction cost to be paid from December 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007.

B. After that, on July 10, 2007, the plaintiff, D, and C acquired the status of contractor under the contract of this case of this case as the plaintiff, and C agreed to take over the loan obligations of KRW 1137 million,00,000,000,000,000 for the remainder of the construction cost reduced by himself as to the portion he performed (=120,000,000 won -63,000 won) and the land of this case as the substitute payment for the loan of KRW 102,00,000,000,000 and transferred its ownership to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to take over the loan obligations of KRW 17,00,000,000,000,000, which is the secured debt of the right to collateral security against the land of this case of this case as to the GUK as well as the loan obligations of KRW 50,000,00,000 for D under the above agreement.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff added 102 units of the instant loan to 10 households, and completed most of the construction works around April 2008, by completing the construction of 5 units of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On August 14, 2008, C changed the name of the building permit for 102 units of the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, around August 2008, the Plaintiff, who suspended the instant construction, did not repay C’s loan obligations to the GUK under the instant payment contract.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.21 2014가단217383

-수원지방법원 2014.05.20 2012가단101509

-서울고등법원 2017.09.29 2016나11761

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.04 2014나26537

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.07.11 2013노897