소유권이전등기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the defendant makes an additional decision as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion, even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a title trust agreement with respect to the instant real estate Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from E, and as such, the Defendant purchased the instant third real estate from E, the legal nature of the title trust agreement constitutes a contractual title trust, and E and G did not know that such title trust agreement existed.
Therefore, pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the registration of ownership transfer of this case is valid.
B. Determination 1) The distinction between whether a title trust agreement is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is determined as a matter of determining who is the contracting party. Even if a contracting party is deemed a title trustee, if the contracting party can be deemed a title truster, it would be a three-party registered title trust. Therefore, if a title truster, not a title trustee, who is the contracting party, entered into a contract with the intent to directly bring about the legal effect of the contract to the title truster, is deemed the contracting party. Thus, the title trust relationship in this case should be deemed as a three-party registered title trust in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52799, Oct. 28, 2010). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the health stand-off, the facts recognized, and the evidence presented earlier, namely, the negotiations and conclusion of each sales contract on real estate in this case.