Law Firm Song-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Seo-Un et al.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “attached appraisal L portion” in paragraph 2 of the judgment shall be corrected to read “the part connected in the order of each point in the attached Form No. 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.11 and 10” in the order of the court of first instance.

The Defendant: (a) performed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on February 27, 2015 by the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) No. 14638 regarding the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on February 27, 2015; (b) performed the procedure for cancellation of the construction (extension) report on the attached list; and (c) consented to the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the said

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on February 27, 2015 by the Daegu District Court No. 14638, which was completed on February 27, 2015 with respect to the part 265 on the ship connecting each point in the order of indication 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 11, 9, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1, 3, 100 square meters of land in the Gu-U.S. C forest land 672 square meters, and shall consent to the plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Gu-U.S.-si D Forest (hereinafter “D Forest”), and newly built the farmer’s housing on the above forest land on October 4, 2013.

B. On September 2, 2013, the Defendant purchased the general housing of the old-si E Forest (hereinafter referred to as “E Forest”) and its ground attached to the letter of D Forest. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the said forest and general housing on September 4, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff originally owned 672m (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The Plaintiff completed the transfer registration of ownership (hereinafter “transfer registration of ownership”) on February 27, 2015, the Daegu District Court No. 14638, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court No. 14638, which received on February 27, 2015, on the ground that the instant forest was traded on February 27, 2015 with respect to the forest of this case (hereinafter “instant forest”).

D. On May 19, 2015, the old U.S. Mayor accepted the report of extension of the attached list (hereinafter “the report of extension of this case”) with the owner of the building as the defendant on May 19, 2015, on the forest of this case and E forest land (hereinafter “the report of extension of this case”) (the report of partial alteration was accepted on July 16, 2015).

E. Since then, ① the land of this case was conducted with usual coal farming operations on the instant forest. ② The attached appraisal of the instant forest was constructed between the portion of land 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 11, and 10 of the attached table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 9, and 10 of the attached table No. 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 10 of the attached table No. 10, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 10 of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as “A,” and “BB”) and the basic construction for the extension of a detached house was completed in accordance with the report on the extension of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20680, Mar. 2, 200>

F. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 17 million, which was the transaction value stated at the time of the instant transfer registration.

G. Accordingly, on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 17 million in the Defendant’s future as the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-si 2015Hun-Ga723 on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal to receive payment.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5, 8, 11, 13, and 15 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance appraiser I, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the application for cancellation registration of ownership transfer

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order for the Plaintiff to extend a building on the land of the instant forest, a farmer’s house newly built on the ground of the instant forest must be changed to general housing. There were problems, such as taking many time for the alteration, returning all charges for exclusive use, which had been newly constructed and reduced and exempted for the said farmer’s house, and building up a road exceeding 6 meters in width. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant, who is the owner of general housing on the land of the instant forest, in contact with the instant forest, to title trust the instant forest to the Defendant, and to file the instant extension report in the name of the Defendant. Since the ownership transfer registration of the instant forest completed under the said agreement was completed through a title trust agreement or a false competitive agreement, and thus, is null and void, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure

B. Determination of the terms of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 9, and the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness F of the court of first instance, the plaintiff shall sell to the defendant a part of the forest land in this case, which is in contact with the forest land E owned by the defendant, and the remaining part of the forest land in this case shall be deemed to have agreed to be entrusted only to the defendant.

① On the second date for pleading of the first instance trial, the Defendant: (a) delegated the Plaintiff with the conclusion of the sales contract on the instant forest; (b) did not attend the place where the said sales contract was prepared; and (c) stated that he did not possess the said sales contract.

② Although the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case was completed in the future of the Defendant, the Plaintiff still holds the registration certificate for the forest of this case.

③ After completing the registration of ownership transfer of the instant forest, the Plaintiff would have been borne by the Defendant, if ordinary sales were to be borne by the Defendant, namely, registration and license tax for conversion, development activities, construction, etc. of the forest of this case, purchase of national housing bonds, legal charges for creating alternative forest resources, purchase of authorization and license insurance, purchase of loan insurance, purchase of ownership registration and license insurance, purchase of the instant forest of this case, and expenses for filing an application for ownership transfer registration, and civil and civil construction costs related to the instant forest of this case.

④ Civil engineering works on the instant forest have been performed at the Plaintiff’s request.

⑤ On September 9, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff, which had passed six months from February 27, 2015, the date of receipt of the instant transfer registration.

(6) However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant merely appear to be a neighbor and not a relative relationship. Nevertheless, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was entrusted with the entire forest of this case under the name of the Plaintiff even when he was at risk of criminal punishment due to title trust.

7) In the process of the civil construction of the instant forest land, the Plaintiff constructed a stone shed between the part 1 and the part. If the Plaintiff thought that the entire forest land was used after the extension of a single house, it would have not been necessary to construct a stone shed and divide the said forest land.

8 The Plaintiff performed a basic construction project for the extension of detached houses only for the two parts, the boundary of which is specified by tin axiss.

9) At the first instance court, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “as at the time of the preparation of the real estate sales contract as of February 27, 2015, the back portion of the instant forest E (A) will be sold to the Defendant.”

10. At the time of the civil engineering work for the forest of this case, the witness F testified that the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife “if the development of the forest of this case is terminated, the forest of this case will be made within the lower ground behind the Defendant’s office.”

C. Determination

1) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that has been completed in relation to the portion of the forest in this case among the forest in this case, as the registration of title trust agreement and ownership transfer registration with respect to the portion of the forest in this case is entirely null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s illegal title trust in violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act constitutes an act of illegal cause by itself, and thus, it cannot seek correction thereof. However, a title trust agreement under the Real Estate Real Name Act refers to an agreement between a person having the actual right to real rights to real estate and another person to hold or hold real rights to real estate internally and the registration thereof is made in his/her name. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the agreement itself constitutes a violation of good customs and other social order. In addition, the above Act does not in principle invalidate only a change in real rights based on a title trust agreement and its registration, and does not prohibit a title truster from exercising his/her rights based on other legal relations, but it does not infringe on the essence of private autonomy and guarantee of property rights by imposing administrative sanctions or punishment against the title truster. Thus, even if the above Act was enacted for the purpose of preventing acts against the law, such as speculation, tax evasion, evasion, and evasion of the law, etc., which abuse the real estate registration system, and thus, the registration of another person’s title trust agreement constitutes illegal cause.

3. Implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the extension report of this case and request for consent

The Plaintiff sought the revocation of the instant extension report under the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant forest land. According to the provisions of Article 11(7) of the Building Act, the revocation of a building permit shall be conducted ex officio by the administrative agency in the event that the person who obtained the building permit fails to commence construction works within a given period, and the building permit deemed granted through the building report may be revoked ex officio by the administrative agency pursuant to the above provisions. In other words, it is reasonable to deem that the administrative agency may revoke the building report ex officio. In other words, the administrative agency must determine whether to revoke the building report ex officio, and it does not require the administrative agency to revoke the building report upon the application only

Therefore, seeking the execution of the procedure for cancellation of the building report against the Defendant, the owner of the building, cannot be deemed as a means suitable for the resolution of legal disputes asserted by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the above claim part among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim related to the extension report in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim except the above rejection part is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of the court of first instance. The "section 2 of the attached appraisal" in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is clear that the "section 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 11, and 10 of the attached appraisal is a clerical error in the part "b

Judges Shin Dong-ho

Judges Nam-young

A person shall be appointed.