logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.07.03 2018가단119262
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 March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant and E with a view to purchasing KRW 570,000,000 as well as the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant and E (hereinafter “F land”) and KRW 122,00,000,000,000,000,000 for the remainder payment upon entering into a contract and to pay the remainder to April 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff, Defendant, and E entered into a sales contract with G after deposit with the Jeonju District Court as the special terms and conditions of the instant sales contract.

2. The balance of KRW 50 million shall be exchanged for a certificate of seal imprint (a certificate of seal imprint, a registration certificate, a certified copy of a resident, and a seal imprint).

B. The Plaintiff determined that “The Defendant and E shall not complete the registration of ownership transfer by the payment date of the remainder under the instant sales contract, and urged the Defendant and E to perform the contract, and deposited KRW 5 million each of the intermediate payment (part of the remainder) with the Defendant and E on May 17, 2016. On May 20, 2016, Seoul Eastern District Court deposited KRW 40 million the remainder of the instant sales contract with the Defendant and E with the deposited deposited the deposited person as Seoul Eastern District Court No. 1649 on May 20, 2016. (C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land transfer based on the instant sales contract (Seoul East District Court Decision 2016Da120886, Jun. 9, 2017). The said court, upon being aware that the sale of the instant land and the instant land would have been subject to the cancellation of the sale contract and its cancellation.”

arrow