소유권이전등기 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Determination on the claim concerning real estate stated in the attached list 1
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was forced by Nonparty C, the mother, around March 19, 2012, to transfer the name of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the name of the Defendant from the name of the Defendant to the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is merely the title trustee, and C is a title truster, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate in accordance with the above written statement.
B. According to the records of evidence No. 1, the plaintiff prepared and delivered to C a letter to the effect that "the name of the farm building is transferred from the name of the defendant to the name of the plaintiff" around March 19, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "each letter of this case"). However, since each letter of this case is merely prepared in the name of the plaintiff and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed on the real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this, the plaintiff's assertion on this part, which is premised on the defendant's duty under each letter of this case, is without merit.
2. Determination on the claim for each motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet 2
A. On August 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an agreement with C to donate each of the instant automobiles listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant automobiles”) to the Defendant on condition that C would not assert ownership as to the real estate in the Plaintiff’s name, and subsequently fully implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to each of the instant automobiles. However, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on or around August 2, 2013 to the effect that C would dispute the ownership of the real estate in the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, the said conditions were not satisfied. Accordingly, the said donation agreement was terminated due to failure to satisfy the requirements.