beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.10.21 2020가단50436

소유권이전등기

Text

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s primary principal claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and Defendant C, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B was completed on July 27, 2005 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Defendant C on the ground of sale and purchase on July 27, 2005.

B. The Plaintiff is a son and female, and occupies the real estate listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant house”).

C. On April 20, 2002, D married with Defendant B, Defendant B’s third village, and D died on December 19, 2015, and D on August 29, 2019.

E is the part of the plaintiff's guidance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate of this case was held in title trust with the Defendant B, who purchased from Defendant C on July 27, 2005 by the Plaintiff’s reference.

The Plaintiff inherited the instant real estate from D, who donated the instant real estate from E.

Since Defendant C knew that the above title trust was held by the seller, the registration of title trust agreement and the transfer of ownership in Defendant B is null and void.

Therefore, Defendant B, upon the Plaintiff’s subrogation request, has the obligation to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration as to the instant real estate, which was completed July 28, 2005, and Defendant C has the obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the Plaintiff on July 27, 2005. Even though Defendant C was unaware of the instant title trust, Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant real estate purchased by Defendant C without any legal cause and obtained unjust enrichment, Defendant B, as it subsequently, had the obligation to return the Plaintiff KRW 61,50,000, equivalent to the purchase price of the instant real estate.

B. We examine whether the judgment E purchased the instant real estate from Defendant C on July 27, 2005 and held the title trust with Defendant B.

l.p. g., p.