이행강제금 부과처분 당연무효확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is to delete the 6th to 10th 8th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e. e. e. g. e. e. e. g. e. e. e. g. e. e. e. g. e. e. e. 6th 1st e. e. e
(A) Whether the part relating to each of the dispositions of this case relating to each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate (1) but the actual owner of each of the lands of this case is the plaintiff, but each of the lands of this case is the former owner and the above 1-A.
The fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in each of the above registered titleholders on the grounds of sale between the respective registered titleholders mentioned in the [mark] and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the above registered titleholders.
Thus, we examine whether the above title trust is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust.
(2) The distinction between whether a title trust agreement is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is a matter of determining who the contracting party becomes a title trustee.
Even if a contracting party can be seen as a title truster, it will be a three-party registered title trust.
Therefore, if it is recognized that a contract is concluded with the intention of directly reverting the legal effect of the contract to the title truster rather than the title trustee, the title truster is the contracting party. Therefore, the title trust relationship in this case should be deemed as a three-party registered title trust.
According to each of the evidence Nos. 17 through 19, the title trustee of each of the instant lands only lent only the name at the Plaintiff’s request. (3) According to the statement of the evidence Nos. 2010Da52799, Oct. 28, 2010, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52799).