beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,421,477 as well as 5% per annum from January 25, 2014 to April 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Attached Form
The real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by Kasco. On March 19, 2012, according to the decision of the Jeonju District Court 201Jhap20, the Kasco agreed on June 30, 201 to transfer the ownership of 1/62 shares of the instant real estate to a car dealer designated by the Defendant by June 30, 2012.
Around April 2012, the Defendant issued a public notice of sale seeking the entrepreneur to move into the real estate of this case according to the decision in lieu of the above conciliation.
On May 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for parcelling-out on the part of 1/62 shares among the instant real estate, namely, one store.
On June 26, 2012, the Defendant agreed to transfer one of the stores of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, agreed to transfer the ownership of 1/62 shares among the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and made up a written agreement (A2) with the Plaintiff.
However, on June 29, 2012, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/62 shares out of the instant real estate to 62 persons, including B, etc., and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, each entry (including additional number) in Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's assertion as to the validity of the transfer contract concluded on June 26, 2012 between the defendant and the plaintiff, and the summary of the defendant's assertion as to the validity of the transfer contract made on June 26, 2012, and the fact that the defendant prepared an agreement (Evidence A
However, at the time, the plaintiff would not cooperate with the defendant in performing his/her obligations under the decision substituting the conciliation unless the plaintiff prepares and provides the agreement to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant would inevitably prepare and provide the above agreement to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the transfer contract concluded on June 26, 2012 between the defendant and the plaintiff was concluded in the old state, and thus, it is invalid or cancelled.