증여계약무효확인 등
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2.In exchange for the purpose of exchange at the trial.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the cases where paragraphs (d) and (4) of Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are used as follows (excluding the judgment of the court of first instance on the defense prior to the merits of paragraph (3)). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
[Attachmentd part] Article 2-4 (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance, if so, the agreement between the Defendants on March 11, 2015 is based on the act of breach of trust against the Plaintiff of the Defendant, and the Defendant B actively participated in the act of breach of trust. Thus, the above donation agreement is null and void as it is an anti-social juristic act or based on false indication that there was a collusion among the Defendants.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to cancel each registration of ownership transfer completed with respect to each real estate of this case to Defendant A, and Defendant A is obligated to implement each of the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff according to the gift contract of this case.
Paragraph 4 of the first instance judgment
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff concluded the instant gift agreement with Defendant A with respect to each of the instant real estate. Meanwhile, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant gift agreement expired by the statute of limitations. As seen earlier, it is apparent that the date of entering into the instant gift agreement was March 9, 2005, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 18, 2016. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant gift agreement against Defendant A had already expired by the statute of limitations prior to filing the instant lawsuit. As such, the Defendants’ assertion is reasonable. As to this, the Plaintiff received each of the instant real estate prior to the conclusion of the instant gift agreement and received it as D again or ancillary facilities.