beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.11 2015나103430

소유권이전등기말소

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation in this part is that the person who actually held the office of D's head of D's factory, etc., "No. 1, 2, 8, and 19" in Part 2 of Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "No. 1, 2, 8, and 19" in Part 3 shall be deemed to be "No. 1, 2, 8, and 10" and the "the defendant" in Part 2, No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "No. 1, 13" and the "No. 2, No. 13 of the judgment of the court of second instance" (hereinafter referred to as "the share acquisition agreement of this case") shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant at the time of the instant sales contract, and concluded a sales contract under the name of the Defendant with F, a seller, under the so-called contract title trust agreement, and completed each of the instant registrations for ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant

However, in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the above title trust agreement is null and void. Since C and F, a party to the instant sales agreement and its agent, were aware of the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of the instant agreements is null and void.

Therefore, C, the owner of each real estate of this case, can seek implementation of the procedure for registration cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of this case to the Defendant.

On the other hand, C expressed his/her intent to transfer ownership of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2014 and July 3, 2015. On July 15, 2015, C decided that each of the instant real estate was KRW 350,000,000 in the purchase price.

Therefore, the plaintiff is a creditor who has a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of each of the instant real estate in accordance with the above transfer agreement or sales contract, and is against the defendant in subrogation of C in order to preserve it.