beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.06.10 2013가단15739

소유권말소등기등

Text

1. Defendant B’s share on April 8, 200 with respect to 661/1043 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic factual basis

A. On February 24, 1999 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of a successful bid due to voluntary auction as of January 6, 199.

B. On May 12, 200, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 8, 2000 as to the portion of 132/1043 of the instant real estate.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 2 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they purchased 661/1043 shares of each of the instant real estate from Defendant B on April 8, 200, respectively, and that Defendant B led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on April 8, 200 with respect to each of the instant real estate shares of 661/1043 among the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they directly purchased 61/1043 of each of the real estate in this case from Defendant B. However, with respect to the registration of transfer, the plaintiffs entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant A and made the registration of transfer from Defendant A to Defendant A immediately. The registration of transfer under the name of the defendant A is null and void in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against Defendant B, the buyer, the plaintiffs can claim the cancellation of the above transfer registration against Defendant B by subrogation of the defendant B.

B. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9-1, 2, and 10, and witness C’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiffs entrusted the registration title of 661/103 of each of the real estate of this case to the defendant A, and it is otherwise admitted.