대여금 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that, at the time of the purchase of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the instant real estate due to the termination of the above title trust by subrogation of the seller D, and against the seller D, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the Plaintiff perform the procedure for the registration of the ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate as to the instant real estate by reason of the termination of the above title trust, on behalf of the seller D.
B. On July 4, 2017, Sungwon District Court rendered a judgment to accept the Plaintiffs’ claim for title trust, and to implement the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of the instant real estate and to implement D’s procedure to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate.
C. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment, and the Seoul High Court revoked the part against the Defendant in the judgment of May 17, 2018, and since the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have held title trust with the Defendant, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant related judgment”) was rendered, and the Plaintiffs appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2018Da238261, Sept. 13, 2018, but the appeal was dismissed and finalized as it is.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 58 through 59, the purport of whole pleadings.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment related to the plaintiffs' assertion, it was treated that the plaintiffs exempted the seller from the seller's obligation to pay the construction price of KRW 1.4 billion. According to the purport of the above, even if the title trust on the real estate of this case cannot be recognized, the defendant's claim for the construction price against D is interest.