소유권말소등기 등
1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B, as to the portion of 330.6/661.2 out of the real estate stated in paragraph 1 of the attached Table among the lawsuits against Defendant B.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 7, 1988, the land in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “the land prior to the instant merger”) and the FJ, which was owned by Nonparty E, was registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of each Defendant B on April 7, 198, and was combined on November 1, 2007 with the real estate listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On January 6, 1996, the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table No. 2 of the land of this case (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly constructed and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in Defendant B’s name.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 8-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is primarily, the instant land was purchased from Defendant C and Nonparty E on April 7, 198, and the Plaintiff’s title was registered under title trust with Defendant B, who is the Plaintiff’s birth. As such, the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant B’s name is null and void pursuant to the so-called three-party title trust agreement under Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. As such, the Plaintiff sought registration of ownership transfer based on the said sale from Defendant C, and sought cancellation of ownership transfer registration by subrogation of Defendant C in order to preserve the right to claim
The instant building is null and void as it was registered for ownership preservation in Defendant B’s name in accordance with the title trust agreement with Defendant B, where the Plaintiff had originally acquired the instant building as a newly constructed building by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer is sought for the restoration of real name.
On the other hand, even though Defendant B is not the owner of the building of this case, the Plaintiff received the rent from the lessee and obtained the profit of KRW 185 million without any legal cause, and thus, sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above money.
(2) Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff and Defendant B jointly operated G. The instant land and the instant land.