소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s money as the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. On August 10, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate under the name of the Defendant on August 10, 2005, pursuant to the Seo-gu District Court Branch Decision 33094, Seo-gu, Daegu District Court Decision 2005, which received on August 10, 2005.
C. As of April 13, 199 and October 15, 2001, each of the instant real estates was established with a maximum debt amount of 12.5 million won and 6.25 million won, the Plaintiff, and Daegu Bank Co., Ltd., a party holding the right to collateral security. However, each of the instant real estates was revoked on November 25, 2015, following the conclusion of the instant gift agreement.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined the cause of the claim. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant donation contract was null and void and that the Defendant entered into the instant donation contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant with a false declaration of intent to avoid compulsory execution of the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant’s registration of ownership transfer should also be cancelled, inasmuch as the Defendant’s title transfer registration should also be invalidated.
However, considering the facts acknowledged above and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the gift contract of this case as invalid as a false conspiracy for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is rejected on a different premise.
3. Conclusion.