소유권이전등기 말소 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Grounds for this court's explanation concerning this part of the facts of recognition are the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.
(Application Law: Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the primary claim among the lawsuits of this case
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land against the deceased C based on the instant conciliation. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant land completed in the name of the Defendant on behalf of the deceased C’s heir on behalf of the deceased C, since there is no legal act that caused the ownership transfer registration of the instant land completed in the name of the Defendant.
① Although the Defendant did not purchase the instant land from the deceased C, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by forging a sales contract on the instant land.
There is no legal act that caused the transfer of ownership in this case.
② The Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant to run the construction project on the instant land building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land.
The above title trust agreement is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name.
③ The Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, shall complete the registration of ownership transfer of this case by deceiving G or network C representing the Plaintiff, and on the ground of such deception, revoke the legal act that caused the registration of ownership transfer of this case by the delivery of the complaint of this case.
B. Where the right of a creditor to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor subrogation lawsuit on the lawfulness of a judgment is not recognized, since the creditor himself/herself became the plaintiff and has no standing to exercise the right of a third debtor against the third debtor, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.
Supreme Court Decision 94Da14339 delivered on June 24, 1994