2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed under No. 10509 on April 9, 2003, with respect to the building indicated in the attached Form, to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff).

2. Purport of appeal and counterclaim

The judgment of the court below is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed, and the plaintiff delivers the building as stated in the attached Form to the defendant, and pays 1,000,000 won per month from April 9, 2003 to the completion date of delivery of the building.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-5, evidence 3-1-2, Gap evidence 4-6, 10 through 14, Gap evidence 15-1, 2, Gap evidence 16-3, Eul evidence 7-1 through 5, Eul evidence 9-1 through 5, 10, 13 through 15, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff church is a church belonging to the Seoul Southern Association, which is a member of the Korean Film Association, and Nonparty 1 is the representative of the Plaintiff church, who graduated from the new school while attending the Korean Film Association, which is a member of the Korean Film Association, before the Plaintiff church is established.

B. Around October 2002, Nonparty 1 decided to establish a plaintiff church which is a branch church, and the building to be used as a church is influenced. On December 17 of the same year, Nonparty 3, the agent of Nonparty 2, sold the building in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to KRW 222,453,00, and paid KRW 22,245,300 as the down payment on the same day, and KRW 22,245,30 as the intermediate payment on the 31st day of the same month.

C. In order to raise the balance, etc. of the sale price of the instant building, Nonparty 1 borrowed approximately KRW 60,000,000 from the Defendant, who is the believers who belongs to the Plaintiff church, without the due date or interest agreement, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as a security for the instant building under the name of the Defendant on April 9, 2003, the Suwon District Court’s registration office of 10509 received on April 9, 2003, and thereafter the Plaintiff church recognized the amount borrowed from the Defendant on March 31, 2004 as KRW 61,014,020.

D. Meanwhile, in order to pay the remainder of the building of this case, Nonparty 1 borrowed KRW 134,00,000 from the National Bank of Korea under the name of the defendant, and on April 10, 2003, registered the establishment of a mortgage over the building of this case as the maximum debt amount of KRW 174,20,000,000, the debtor and the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd., the debtor, and around that time, Nonparty 2 paid KRW 134,00,000 and the remainder of KRW 43,962,40.

E. On December 17, 2002, the Plaintiff church purchased the instant building, moved into the middle order of March 2003, made it possible to exploit the said building on the 23th day of the same month. On April 4, 2004, the Plaintiff church made a resolution to establish its articles of association and to approve its articles of association and to appoint its representative to appoint Nonparty 1 as its representative, and until now, the instant building is occupied and used as the church party.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff church is not the plaintiff church but the non-party 1, and that the plaintiff church is not the non-party 1, but the plaintiff church is not the non-party 1, but the plaintiff plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant. However, in the performance lawsuit, the plaintiff's plaintiff is standing to sue. Thus, the above ground for the defendant's argument is only a ground to be judged as a claim, and it is not a matter to be determined as a party's standing to sue. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

Therefore, as the law does not seem to regulate a church as an unincorporated association, the regulations concerning an incorporated association or the legal principles concerning a company during the establishment shall be applied mutatis mutandis, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, if the representative of a church during the establishment of a church performs a legal act in the name of a church during the establishment of a church, the rights and duties acquired in the name of the church during the establishment of the church shall belong to the company during the establishment of the establishment in the form of collective ownership, but shall belong to the church after the establishment

According to the above evidence, the non-party 1 entered into a direct sales contract with the non-party 2's agent who is the seller of the building of this case on behalf of the plaintiff church and paid the price. The non-party 1 clearly notified the non-party 3 at the time of entering into the sales contract for the building of this case that the building of this case would be sold to the non-party 3 and would be used for the purpose of the church. The non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant for a kind of security for borrowing money from the defendant. The defendant sent a certificate of content that he would sell the building of this case on May 17, 2004, and there is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts, since it is evident that the plaintiff church had been a church during the process of establishing the sale contract of this case on behalf of the church during its establishment, the status of the contract under which the plaintiff church concluded the sale contract of this case on behalf of the plaintiff church belongs to the plaintiff church without any separate transfer act, and the defendant is merely a title trustee entrusted with only the name of the plaintiff church. In the case of the so-called middle omission title trust, the title trust agreement and the registration based thereon are null and void, and as a result, the real estate trusted in title is returned to the seller, the seller can seek cancellation of the registration in the name of the seller, and the title truster can file a claim for cancellation of the registration in the name of the seller, and in order to preserve the seller's right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer, the title truster can exercise the right to claim cancellation of the registration in the name of the title trustee (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Da61654, Mar. 14, 2002; 94Da58148, Apr. 14, 1995).

4. Determination on the cause of the counterclaim

The defendant asserts that the building of this case is owned by the defendant and it is owned by the plaintiff church, and that the plaintiff church has a duty to deliver the building of this case to the defendant and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from use. However, the defendant's transfer of ownership was made in the name of the defendant for the purpose of securing claims against the loan of this case as to the building of this case, as seen earlier, since the defendant cannot be said to be the owner of the building of this case between the plaintiff church and the plaintiff church, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff church's claim is reasonable, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court below is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal disputing this conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)