소유권이전등기
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. According to the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the following additional parts, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The defendant asserts that although the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed according to lawful procedures according to the plaintiff's intention, even if the contract of this case was rescinded, the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the restoration of the true name from the defendant is not allowed.
A claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of this case is permitted instead of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the present registered titleholder by a person who has already registered ownership in his/her future or who has acquired ownership under the law, in a way to restore the true title of the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da37894, Sept. 20, 201). In the event that the sales contract is lawfully rescinded as in this case, the Plaintiff, the buyer, can recover the registration by exercising the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the true title against the Defendant, the buyer.
Since the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant initially owned the instant real estate by C, the husband of the Plaintiff, and C completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff as a payment for debt owed to the Plaintiff. D, the Defendant’s husband of the Plaintiff, had a construction payment claim against C. However, instead of transferring the ownership of the instant apartment, C and D renounced renounced the construction payment claim owned by D to C and paid the Plaintiff the money that D borrowed in the name of the Defendant as collateral for the instant real estate, and the Defendant transferred this to the Plaintiff.