소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on January 23, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who are the wife E and children of the deceased, are co-inheritors, and the inheritance shares are 3/9 of the above E, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, respectively.
B. On August 14, 2014, the Deceased donated each of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendants, and the Busan District Court completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 51396 on August 19, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination:
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the real estate of this case was jointly invested by the deceased and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff had been operating a new factory building and a scrap metal shop on that ground after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the deceased for convenience. For this reason, the deceased cannot unilaterally donate the real estate to the Defendants, and since the contract on donation in the name of the deceased was procedural defect, the contract of this case is null and void, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants must be cancelled. 2) The presumption of the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following: (i) the registered titleholder is a legitimate holder; (ii) the presumption of registration is a legitimate holder; (iii) the reason for registration was lawful; and (iv) the registration procedure was duly made, the Defendants, the registered titleholder, can be presumed to have been legally
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim cannot be accepted, since the plaintiff's statements as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 13 and witness F's testimony alone are insufficient to reverse the above presumption, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
B. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the conjunctive claim was to obtain special benefits from the gift of the instant real estate.