소유권이전등기
1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. Defendant B, C, D, and E are listed in the separate sheet.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 18, 1989, J completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of sale on August 6, 1989 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the name of Nonparty K.
B. On January 29, 2004, the non-party L, a child, died after having left Defendant F, a child, Defendant G, H, and I who is the husband, as the bereaved family member, and on July 24, 2005, K died after having left Defendant B, C, D, and E, a child as the bereaved family member.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 3 (including paper numbers)
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. The plaintiff asserted that on August 15, 1989, the plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") from J, and agreed to purchase the real estate of this case from K to K as the purchaser of each of the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that he/she sought cancellation of registration under the name of K, which is the invalid registration made in accordance with the title trust agreement, against the defendant B, etc., who is the co-inheritors of K, by subrogation of J, as the purchaser of each of the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the defendant B, etc. asserted that he/she purchased each of the real estate of this case from J, not the plaintiff, and K did not receive the title trust from the plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) The following facts and circumstances, which may be acknowledged in light of the existence of the preserved right, the result of the personal examination of the Plaintiff and the purport of the entire pleadings against the Plaintiff of this court, are as follows: ① The Plaintiff was in title trust to K at the trial, and the Plaintiff had been granted a permanent loan prior to the purchase of each of the instant real estate by the Plaintiff (the public official in charge of the Dong office was the amount of KRW 5 million out of the amount of loans to the Plaintiff, and only KRW 4.5 million was paid to the Plaintiff.
In the event that each of the instant real estate is purchased and made in the name of the Plaintiff himself/herself, the said real estate owner goes beyond the criteria for loans from the Young-gu resident.