[가옥명도청구사건][고집1975민(1),381]
Cases where the preservation of ownership made in front of the person holding the construction permit becomes null and void;
In the new construction of a building after purchasing a site, the building name was the owner of the site in order to secure the payment of the remaining price of the site, and it was decided that the building should be owned by the owner of the site until the remaining price is fully paid, and then, the building as completed after the termination of the contract for the sale of the site, is registered for preservation in front of the owner of the site, who is the owner of the building, by a provisional attachment
Article 187 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court (74Gahap320 delivered on July 1, 200)
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
Defendant 1, among the real estate(a) and real estate(b) in the order of each point of (c), (c), (c), (6), (7), (7), (7) and (3) above, Defendant 1, in the order of each of the foregoing drawings (c), (d), (d), (e), (f), (c), (c) and (c), and (c) of the attached drawings in the original judgment among the 15-3-25 ground bricks, 153-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 153-2, 15-6, 15-6, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-6, 15-6, 15-6, 15-6, 15-6, and 3-7-7, 15-7, respectively, connected each of the above drawings among the real estate(c) of the same real estate.
The same shall apply to the order.
According to the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 (certified copy of the register), if there is no dispute in the establishment, it can be recognized that the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the plaintiff on the register with respect to the building (limited to the building that is separated from the following) stated in the claim
The defendants were to acquire ownership of the above non-party 1 on the 7th anniversary of the above construction site by the non-party 1. The non-party 2 was to acquire the above 0-party 1's non-party 7 non-party 1's non-party 7 non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 7 non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9'
According to the above facts, this building was constructed by Nonparty 1 and it was originally acquired by that person. Thus, in order to secure the above site payment obligation against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 1 entrusted the ownership of the building under the name of permission or the ownership of the building to Nonparty 2. However, as Nonparty 2 exhibited, the above title trust relationship was terminated before the registration of ownership preservation of the building was completed due to the cancellation of the contract. Thus, the registration of ownership preservation of the building on April 22, 71 in the name of the same person is the registration invalidation. The registration of ownership preservation of the building on April 22, 71 in the name of the same person is also the registration of ownership invalidation. The registration of ownership transfer of Nonparty 3 and 4 who acquired the successful bid on the premise that the building is owned by Nonparty 2, and the registration of ownership transfer from both the above parties is also the registration of invalidation invalidation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case based on the ownership of the building is without merit which does not have any decision on the remaining allegations of the parties, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's claim against the defendants.
Judges Lee Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)