logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.15 2013가합509758
매매대금
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the request for change of the name of the owner of an unauthorized building register shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant conclude an investment agreement and purchase of real estate listed in the separate sheet 1) the Plaintiff and the Defendant are real estate listed in the separate sheet C owned (hereinafter “instant building”).

A) The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the sales cost by bearing half of the sales cost, and to jointly own the name of the owner of an unauthorized building ledger (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”).

(2) Accordingly, on January 11, 2010, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to jointly purchase the instant building at KRW 140,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales”) and agreed to pay KRW 25,00,000 on the date of the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 40,000,000 on March 11, 201, and the remainder payment of KRW 75,00,000 on June 11, 2010.

3) However, because it is difficult for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to register the instant building as the co-ownership of the building, the Defendant alone purchased the instant building between the Defendant and C. On January 29, 2010, the intermediate payment payment date was changed to April 29, 2010, and the Defendant entered the instant building as the sole ownership of the instant building on the unauthorized Building Register. (B) The payment of the instant purchase price was made by the Defendant on January 11, 201, 200, KRW 5,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 16,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 40, KRW 5,000, KRW 16,30, KRW 40, KRW 10,000, KRW 400, KRW 400, KRW 4000, KRW 4000, KRW 4000, KRW 400, 2010.

2. Determination on the request for change of the name of the owner of an unauthorized building ledger

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the instant building one-half, and that the Plaintiff owned the name of the owner of an unauthorized building register prepared in relation to the instant building.

arrow