beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단36720

소유권이전등기 말소회복등기 등

Text

1. As to the buildings listed in the attached Table 2 among the primary claims against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) C by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. As to the plaintiff's respective main claim

A. Each of the respective arguments (1) The plaintiff asserts as follows as the grounds for each of the instant claims.

① From April 20, 1973 to February 6, 1984, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate of the former and the former building prior to annexation into each real estate listed in the separate sheet three times between the former and the former owner, respectively, and completed each registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant B, thereby completing each of the above real estate to the Defendant B. After which each of the above land and the former building was combined, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land,” “instant building,” “each of the instant real estate,” or “each of the instant real estate”).

Afterward, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future on September 21, 1987 on the ground of sale only on the instant land. Since the Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, forged relevant documents around October 1994 and completed the registration of cancellation on the above transfer of ownership, which was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the instant land, the registration of cancellation is invalid.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant building on the ground of unjust enrichment return to the Plaintiff, and the procedure for recovery registration for the ownership transfer registration illegally cancelled on the ground of the foregoing circumstance as to the instant land.

② However, as long as the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on May 7, 2013, based on the act of false conspiracy with each of the instant real estate by Defendant C, who is his father, based on the act of false conspiracy with each of the instant real estate, the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer is invalid. As such, Defendant C, who is the owner of the instant land, directly registers the cancellation of ownership transfer registration and the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on the instant building by the Plaintiff, who subrogated Defendant B