[토지소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1979민,267]
Whether permission of authorities is necessary where a non-resident under the Foreign Exchange Control Act seeks the registration of transfer of ownership due to the termination of a trust.
In the sale of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff himself acknowledges that he did not obtain the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy required by the above related Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if there is a title trust relationship as alleged in the household, the plaintiff as a non-resident cannot acquire the ownership of the real estate which is a domestic real estate, and has the right to request the defendant to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership
Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree thereof
Matern police officer;
Long-term Bank of Korea
Seoul District Court Incheon support (78Gahap14) for the first instance court Incheon District Court
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the termination of title trust on December 27, 197 with respect to the real estate in attached list 1 through 4 to the plaintiff.
The court costs are assessed against the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
The fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the defendant on the real estate in the attached list is not in dispute between the parties.
On April 26, 1972, the plaintiff purchased several parcels of land other than the land listed in the attached Table 1 from Lee Young-su, etc. on the ground of the plaintiff's claim, and made a registration of ownership transfer under the agreement with the defendant, who is the plaintiff, to trust his title to the defendant as to the land listed in the attached Table 1, and thereafter, he purchased the land listed in the attached Table 1 from the non-party Kim Jong-bong, etc. and subsequently made a registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name. The plaintiff agreed with the defendant to purchase the land listed in the attached Table 2 through 4 from the 14th of August, 1972, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name. The plaintiff argued that on December 27, 1977, the plaintiff terminated the above title trust with the defendant, and that the defendant can not acquire any real estate under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which is the law of the law of the enforcement of the Foreign Exchange Control Act against Japan, and the defendant asserted that the above real estate transfer registration procedure was not made.
According to Article 30 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 37 (1) 1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a resident intends to dispose of real estate located in the Republic of Korea to a nonresident, the resident may dispose of the real estate with the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the non-resident may acquire such permission. The above provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes shall be compulsory and have no effect on disposal or acquisition of real estate in violation thereof. According to Article 1-11 of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations (Evidence No. 6) of the same Act, a citizen of the Republic of Korea who stays in a foreign country after departing from the Republic of Korea for the purpose of staying in a foreign country for more than 2 years or staying there after departure from the Republic of Korea, and is considered as a non-resident under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the fact that the plaintiff is the so-called re-appellant of real estate residing in Japan, and even if the plaintiff did not obtain the ownership registration of the real estate at the time of filing of the plaintiff's title trust, the plaintiff's title trust registration No. 13.
If so, without examining the plaintiff's trust agreement and its termination, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit. Thus, the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and thus, the original judgment is accepted and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's total costs of lawsuit as the losing party.
Judges Lee Young-soo (Presiding Judge)