건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The plaintiff did not appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance within the scope of the judgment of this court. Since the defendant appealed only to the counterclaim part, the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the judgment as to the defendant's additional proposal, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
3. Judgment as to the defendant's additional assertion
A. As to the assertion of false declaration of intent in collusion or juristic act in anti-social order, the Defendant: (a) sold one-third shares of the instant building, which was held in title trust by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff actively participated in the F’s embezzlement and completed the registration of ownership transfer; (c) accordingly, the above sales contract asserts to the effect that it constitutes a false declaration of intent, which constitutes a juristic act in anti-social order and is null and void, as it is null and void or formally completed the registration of ownership transfer without the actual transaction act;
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant sales contract was a false declaration of intent that the parties conspired, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.
B. As to the assertion on preservation of the article jointly owned, the Defendant asserted in the first instance trial that the right to claim the restoration of the name of the Plaintiff or the cancellation registration in the position of the title truster against F is the preserved bond, and F is the subrogation claim against the Plaintiff, or the right to claim the cancellation registration due to fraudulent act which F holds against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant further asserts that this court is the owner of the 1/3 share of the building of this case at present. Therefore, the Defendant directly sought the cancellation of the registration of invalidation based on F share, as the preservation act of the article jointly owned, based on F share, as it is the owner of the 1/3 share of the building of this case.