A. Defendant Park Jong-il implements the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name to Defendant Kim Jong-chul.

B. Defendant Kim Jong-ok ( Address: ○○○○-dong, Seoul ○○○○○○○○ apartment, 107 dong 803), followed the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on November 15, 2001.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Kim Il-su and Mao-su is dismissed in entirety.

3. Of the total litigation cost, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant Park Il-il, and Kim Il-young are borne by the Plaintiff, respectively.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant Kim ○○ and the letter of credit shall be revoked. The Disposition Paragraph (1) of this Article (the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration following the invalidation of a title trust agreement with respect to the defendant Park Jong-il and Kim Kim Kim ○, and sought the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of authentic names in the trial before the court of first instance changed the purport of the claim to seek the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of authentic names), and the defendant Kim Kim ○-○ shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of neighboring real estate, which was completed on November 27, 2001 by the Incheon District Court Office of 21948, which was completed on November 27, 2001, with respect to each real estate listed in the No. 17 and 18 from among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was completed on May 6, 2004 by the Incheon District Court of Justice.

2. Purport of appeal by Defendant Park Il-il and Kim Il-young

Of the judgment of the first island, the part against Defendant Park Il-il and Glag shall be revoked, and all of the claims against Defendant Park Il-il and Kim Il-young shall be dismissed.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the same as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The Plaintiff: (a) acquired each of the instant real estate by O○○ in order to carry out a title trust agreement between Defendant Park Jong-il and the owner; and (b) only the name of the owner was left in the future of Defendant Park Jong-il; (c) As the registration of ownership transfer in his name becomes null and void pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, Defendant Park Jong-il is obligated to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name as to each of the instant real estate; and (d) Defendant Kim Jong-ok is obligated to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the sale on November 15, 2001 for each of the instant real estate; and (e) the registration of ownership transfer based on the mutual agreement between Defendant Kim-○ and the owner of

It argues that the above registration should be cancelled.

B. The Defendants

As to this, the Defendants asserted that each of the instant real estate was purchased from Defendant Kim Il-ok and that the parties who concluded a title trust agreement with Defendant Park Jong-chul and the title trust agreement were ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”), and that the Defendant was merely responsible for concluding a contract as the representative director of ○○ Construction, and that the relevant criminal judgment cannot be punished by the corporation, which was the representative director of the corporation, was merely punished. Ultimately, the Defendants asserted that ○○ Construction’s ownership cannot be subrogated for the Plaintiff’s claim for the pre-registration due to the tax claim against the Plaintiff ○○○ Construction.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Park Il-il and Kim Il-young

A. Determination on the legality of the instant lawsuit

The obligee’s subrogation right for preserving health bond and monetary claim cannot be exercised solely by the fact that the obligor does not have the intent to perform his/her obligation, and can be exercised when it is necessary to prevent the reduction of the general property because the obligor’s general property is insufficient to repay his/her claim, including the obligee who has the right of subrogation, and according to the above basic facts, the obligee’s small property is currently up to 396,454,160 won of the tax liability in arrears against the Plaintiff, while it is recognized that the obligee does not possess any other active property. Therefore, ○○ crime needs to prevent the reduction of the general property due to the financial situation at the time of the closing of argument in this case.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is lawful.

B. Determination as to the existence of subrogation claim

1) Determination of a truster of title trust relationship

As to whether the party who entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant Park Jong-il is an individual of ○○, or ○○ Construction with the representative director, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the following: (a) the records in subparagraphs 5 through 20 (including paper numbers), and evidence in subparagraphs 6, 22, and 23 (including paper numbers); (b) the personal examination results in Defendant Kim Kim-young; (c) the witness's testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings; and (d) the witness's testimony and partial testimony in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 7 through 20, and 24, 25, 27, and 41 (including paper numbers) cannot be believed; (b) the witness's testimony in violation of subparagraphs 1 through 4, 7 through 20, and 24, 27, 41 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

In other words, ○○ established a sales contract for each real estate of this case by soliciting ○○ in a close-friendly relationship, and the nominal owner of the sales contract and the registration of transfer of ownership was also the ○○ day in a close-friendly relationship with ○○.

② The crime of ○○ directly negotiated on the terms and conditions of the contract with Defendant Kim ○○, and, on its own initiative, raised funds for purchase.

③ In the course of the investigation of a criminal case No. 2004Gadan3134 in this court, ○○ was recognized as the actual owner of each of the instant real estate, and the actual purchaser of each of the instant real estate was the ○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and the prosecutor made a statement with the agreement that the actual purchaser of each of the instant real estate was the ○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and the prosecutor instituted a public action by judging that the actual purchaser and the title truster of the instant real estate was the ○○○○○

④ When it was difficult for ○○ to conduct economic activities in its name due to tax delinquency, etc., the crime was established by establishing a corporation including ○○ Construction, etc. to conduct economic activities in its name.

⑤ ○○ Construction reported each of the instant real estate at a tax office, etc. after the instant lawsuit was brought, to the property of ○○ Construction, and processed the cost accordingly.

④ There are 2,081m forest land in ○○○-2,081m between each of the instant real property and the instant road, ○○○○-gun, Incheon, ○○○○-gun, Incheon, and 2,081m2 forest land in 83-2,00m2,000m2,000,000 m2,081m2.

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the argument process of this case, it is reasonable to view that the party who purchased each of the instant real estate from Defendant Kim ○○ and concluded a title trust agreement between Defendant Park ○○ and Defendant Park ○○ as an individual rather than ○○ Construction.

2) Whether the right to claim ownership transfer registration is recognized

First, with respect to the existence of the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against OOO's crime, if the agreement was concluded in the name of another person in the name of the buyer and the registration of ownership transfer in purchasing the real estate through another person, and the seller becomes null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Explanation of Real Estate, and the sales contract becomes null and void accordingly, even if the status of the purchaser under the sales contract is not naturally attributed to the title truster, but if the seller, who is the other party to the contract, consented to or consented to transfer the real estate to the title truster instead of the title truster, and expressed his intention to transfer the real estate to the title truster, then it is reasonable to deem that the transfer agreement was concluded separately with the terms of the previous sales contract regardless of the intention of the title truster who lost his status as the purchaser by the invalidation of the title trust agreement. Accordingly, even if the title truster is not the initial purchaser, the title truster can claim for the registration of ownership transfer due to separate transfer cancellation against the seller, and considering the above circumstances and the remainder of the contract between the parties to this court.

As long as the instant sales contract was concluded in the name of Defendant Park Jong-il and completed the registration of ownership transfer, as seen earlier, the parties to the sales contract shall be deemed to be Defendant Park Jong-il, who is the title trustee. However, in the event that the title trust agreement between Defendant Kim Il-young and Defendant Park Jong-il was invalidated pursuant to Article 4 of the Real Estate Explanation Act, and accordingly the sales contract becomes null and void, it is reasonable to deem that the transfer agreement, regardless of the intention of the title trustee who lost the buyer’s status by the invalidation of the title trust agreement, was separately concluded between Defendant Kim Il-young and the Defendant Park Il-il, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the ownership transfer agreement, such as the previous sales contract, was separately made with respect to

Next, as a title trust agreement between ○○ and ○○○ Day becomes null and void, the Plaintiff may seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name against ○○○ Day by subrogation of the seller, Defendant Kim Jong-il, in addition to seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, in addition to seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, in lieu of claiming for the cancellation of the title transfer registration due to the restoration of the real name. A claim for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the real name was already made by the person who acquired ownership under the law, or by means of restoring the real name, against the present registered titleholder by way of restoring the real name (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24856, Mar. 28, 2003). Therefore, in this case where the change of real right between the seller and the buyer of ○○○○ and Defendant Park Jong-il, the Plaintiff may seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against ○○○ by subrogation of O○○ and Defendant Kim Jong-○ in sequence.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff acted in the order of preservation of his own tax claim, the defendant Park Jong-il has a duty to implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name with respect to each of the real estate of this case to the defendant Kim Jong-young, and the defendant Kim Jong-chul has a duty to implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration based on the sale on November 15, 2001 for each of the real estate of this case to the defendant Kim Jong-young.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Kim Il-young and Mao-su

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first island, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Il-il, and the defendant Park Il-young is justified.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Kim Il-su and Ma-su is dismissed as all of the grounds for rejection. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to defendant Kim Il-su and Ma-su is justified with this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Kim Il-su and Ma-su is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the previous lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on each of the real estate of this case against the defendant Park Il-il and Kim Il-young was withdrawn from the exchange change at the trial, and the judgment of the court of first instance becomes null and