소유권이전등기 말소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.
The west side of the land J-ri (hereinafter referred to as the “J-ri”) of the Gu, Si, U.S. J-ri (hereinafter referred to as the “J-ri”) adjoins the E site, and C forest land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant forest land”) is adjacent to the north of the site D and E.
On September 4, 2013, the defendant purchased the E site and its ground general housing, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant forest and land between D and D, newly constructed a farmer’s house on the ground of D’s land and registered ownership preservation.
B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant forest to the Defendant as the grounds for registration; and (b) registered the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer”).
C. On May 19, 2015, the old U.S. Mayor accepted a report on the extension of a detached house on the instant forest and E site with the owner of the building as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant extension report”). D.
The Plaintiff spent various expenses, such as the cost of civil engineering and design, and the cost of civil engineering and construction, and performed the work of flatizing the forest of this case, and he stockpiled stone in the middle of the work.
Among the forest land of this case, the part located on the east (hereinafter referred to as the “section”) with the boundary of the said embankment adjacent to D site owned by the Plaintiff, and the part located on the west (hereinafter referred to as “A”) adjacent to E site owned by the Defendant.
The plaintiff had a construction work for the extension of detached houses only for the two parts.
2. The judgment of the court below
A. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.
There were many problems in making a report of extension in the name of the plaintiff on the forest of this case, and the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to title trust the forest of this case to the defendant and to extend the building owned by the plaintiff after making a report of extension in the name of the defendant.
The transfer registration of this case is null and void because it is based on a title trust agreement or a false agreement.
The defendant.