건물명도
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The lower court determined as follows on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
With respect to the claim for the principal lawsuit, E acquired a single-story house prior to the new construction of the instant building, removed it and newly constructed the instant building at its own expense and subsequently acquired the ownership at its own expense, and title trust was made to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for convenience.
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary primary claim on the premise that the building of this case is owned by the plaintiff is without merit.
B. With respect to the counterclaim claim, E purchased the instant land from I, and only under the name of the Plaintiff, made an interim omission title trust agreement in the name of the Plaintiff, and (2) subsequently acquired the instant building in the original name, and made a bilateral title trust agreement in the name of the Plaintiff only.
Pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, the above title trust agreement and any change in real rights pursuant thereto are all null and void.
Therefore, E has the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the instant land against I, and the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of Defendant B’s shares in the instant land to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Defendant hereinafter “Defendant”) co-inheritors, as co-inheritors.
In addition, the Plaintiff is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation on the shares in inheritance of Defendant B among the instant building.
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the presumption of preservation registration, the burden of proof of title trust, and the establishment of the authenticity of private documents, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,
3. Therefore, all appeals are filed.