logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.07.04 2017나1269
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 6 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to or after the addition to or after the addition as follows:

The facts that Defendant B and E completed each registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the same day with respect to the instant real estate to J on January 29, 2015 are as seen earlier. However, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the result of the first instance court’s personal examination, the Plaintiff’s agreement to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to J, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B and E completed each of the above registration of ownership transfer to J upon the Plaintiff’s agreement to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to J. Accordingly, Defendant B and E should be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff under the instant sales contract by completing each of the above registration of ownership transfer to J. Accordingly, Defendant B and E should be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff under the instant sales contract by completing each of the above registration of ownership transfer to J.

In this court’s testimony, the Plaintiff recognized that he had her fluencing her flyed her to exchange the instant real estate from Defendant D, and the Plaintiff stated that Defendant D accepted the instant real estate exchange with Defendant D, and that Defendant C was also aware of the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the said part, and that the Plaintiff made a proxy and sent it to Defendant D by mail at the time of the preparation of the notarial deed and sent it to Defendant D by mail, and that the said notarial deed was aware of the content of the notarial deed, stating that “ how the instant real estate was sold and repaid to Defendant C the balance.”

Defendant D also the defendant of this Court.

arrow