소유권말소등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the defendant's judgment as to the defendant's argument to the extent that it is stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. As long as the Plaintiff terminated the first title trust and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the Defendant, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the instant case. ② The instant lawsuit was brought by D’s inheritors, excluding the Defendant, in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes a litigation trust or an abuse of rights.
B. The distinction between whether the Defendant’s title trust of the first title is a three-party registered title trust or a contract title trust is a matter of determining the parties to the contract.
Unless there exist special circumstances, such as: (a) if the purchaser had decided to purchase real estate under the name of another person, the title trust relationship ought to be deemed as a contract title trust, barring special circumstances, such as: (b) the title truster, not the title trustee, but the title truster, has entered into a contract with the intent of directly
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da105369 Decided May 14, 2015). Although the name of the purchaser of the instant land was the Plaintiff, there are no special circumstances, such as: (a) the seller, who is the contracting partner, entered into a contract with the intent of directly reverting the legal effect of the contract to D, rather than the Plaintiff, who is the contracting partner; (b) thus, it is reasonable to deem that the ownership transfer registration of the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff was made in accordance with the contract title trust.
In addition, according to the whole purport of Gap evidence No. 11 and the argument, the land of this case is sold.