logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.09.29 2015나59493
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a sale promise with respect to the purchase price of KRW 150,00,000,000, and the date of completion of the purchase and sale as to the shares of KRW 6612/977, out of KRW 9,767,000, in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, the defendant owned by the defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 23, 2014; on April 23, 2015, the sale promise with respect to the land of this case, the purchase and sale of which is naturally completed without the declaration of intention of completion of the purchase and sale (hereinafter “the instant promise”), and on December 24, 2014, the plaintiff filed for provisional registration with the Jeju District Court No. 64610, Oct. 23, 2014 to the effect that the ownership transfer registration was completed due to the sale registration (hereinafter “the ownership transfer registration”).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration of this case with respect to the land of this case on the basis of the provisional registration of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the provisional registration of this case is invalid registration because it did not prepare a pre-sale contract with the plaintiff, and the confirmation document attached to the pre-sale contract is not prepared by the defendant.

Where a registration has been made on a certain real estate, it shall be presumed that the provisional registration of this case was made lawfully in the cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). Thus, the party asserting the procedure and cause of the registration is responsible for proving that the provisional registration of this case is null and void, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. The defendant consented to lending bonds to H and issued necessary documents.

arrow