소유권이전등기
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are the children born between the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) and E, and the Defendant is the spouse who re-born with the deceased on October 23, 2002.
B. As to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 30, 2014 as to the real estate as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) with respect to the Defendant’s future purchase and sale as prescribed by Suwon District Court’s Suwon District Court’s Receipt No. 1548999,
C. On December 11, 2017, the deceased died, and the Plaintiffs inherited the deceased’s property as their respective shares of 2/7 and 3/7.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the apartment house of this case was held in title trust by the deceased, and the plaintiffs, the inheritor of the deceased, terminated the title trust agreement with the defendant by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust with respect to each of 2/7 shares of the apartment of this case
B. Determination 1) Since a person who is registered as an owner of real estate is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate procedures and causes, the fact that the registration was based on title trust has the burden of proving that the registration was based on the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). 2) The fact that the ownership transfer registration based on the sale of the apartment of this case was completed in the future of the defendant is as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant is presumed to be the owner of the apartment of this case.
Even if the source of the above apartment acquisition fund is the deceased, the actions that the deceased would naturally have taken if they were the actual owner as the title truster of the apartment of this case are not proved by the plaintiffs, and the deceased and the defendant.