2...

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E purchased each of the instant shares in the name of the Defendant on July 2, 2008 under the title trust agreement with the Defendant, and sold it to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013.

In order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of E based on the agreement on February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of each procedure for ownership transfer registration against the Defendant on the ground of termination of title trust in subrogation of E.

B. According to the evidence No. 2 of the judgment, it is recognized that the transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on each of the instant shares was concluded, but the title trust agreement between E and the Defendant was concluded, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Even if such a title trust agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, E cannot seek the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant shares against the Defendant on the ground of the termination of the title trust agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to examine further.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant is unfair with different conclusions, the part is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.