[소유권이전등기말소][공1977.11.15.(572),10329]
The case holding that there are special circumstances to protect the title truster even if the title trustee has registered the transfer of real estate shares under the name of a third party.
Even in cases where a trustee for the purchase and sale of real estate sells his/her share to a third party after the termination of the trust for the sale and purchase of shares, and thereby completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a third party, if the part on the claim for the cancellation of the registration for the transfer of ownership completed in the name of a third party is pending in the first instance court due to omission in trial, it may be possible for the seller of shares to cancel the registration of the transfer of ownership. In such cases
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Nam-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Gwangju High Court Decision 75Na28 delivered on May 16, 1975
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the public-private partnership, a plaintiff's attorney, are examined (the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff Kim Yong-Nam shall be considered to the extent that the grounds of appeal by the above public-private partnership are accompanied).
The court below held that some of the above shares in the plaintiff's original forest land were sold to the defendant, and that the remaining shares were trusted to the defendant. The plaintiff's original ownership transfer registration was cancelled on October 11, 1972 on the ground that the grounds for registration was transferred on October 6, 1972, and that the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was cancelled on the part of the plaintiff's original forest land No. 3/4 as of July 9, 1973, and then the non-party's new ownership transfer registration was cancelled on the part of the plaintiff's original land No. 3/4 as of September 21, 1973. The court below held that the non-party's new ownership transfer registration was cancelled on the part of the plaintiff's original land No. 3/4 as of February 1, 1974, and that the non-party's new ownership transfer registration was cancelled on the part of the plaintiff's original land No. 97.
In light of the evidence and records of this case at the time of the decision of the court below, the above fact-finding of the court below can be justified and it cannot be concluded that the facts-finding process is illegal or unlawful in the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing. Therefore, the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 and the grounds of appeal No. 1 of supplementary appeal by the plaintiff Kim Nam is groundless
However, even though each of the above claims for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made under the name of the defendant for whom the above non-party is sought against the defendant and each of the above claims for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made under the name of the non-party for which the above non-party is sought against the above non-party is simply a simple concurrent relationship, the purpose of the lawsuit is not to be determined uniformly, and even if the purchase and sale of shares of real estate or the title trustee of the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "purchase and Trustee") is cancelled, and the sale of shares is to be cancelled or the title truster of such shares (hereinafter referred to as "sale of shares, truster") seeks cancellation or restoration of the registration following cancellation or termination of the title trust after the title trust of such shares is terminated, the above claim is to be made under the name of the non-party 1 in the above case where "Purchase and Trustee have sold such shares to a third party and the title transfer registration has been made under the name of the non-party 1 in the above case where the non-party 2 becomes liable for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1."
Therefore, the first ground for appeal by the public official who was the plaintiff pointing out this point is with merit, and therefore the original judgment shall not be relieved of reversal from this point of view. Accordingly, the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)