압류처분무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
At the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the second part "as of February 13, 2014" shall be read as "as of February 13, 2004".
2. The judgment of this Court
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Ecom Association held title trust with the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the actual owner of the instant building is the Ecom Association.
Therefore, all of the defendant's disposition imposing enforcement fines and the disposition of this case premised on the above disposition are null and void by viewing the building of this case as owned by the plaintiff.
B. According to the evidence No. 1-1 of the judgment of the court below, since it is recognized that the Ehys Association completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 14, 2004 with respect to the building of this case on the ground of donation made on February 13, 2004 to the plaintiff on February 14, 2004, it is presumed that the plaintiff lawfully acquired the ownership of the building of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46256, Feb. 28, 2003). The fact that Ehys held the title trust to the plaintiff should be proved by the plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da36372, Mar. 28, 2000). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the actual owner of the instant building acquired the instant building as a title trust is an Ecom Association cannot be accepted.
Even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant building through title trust, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the ownership ought to be deemed to have been externally reverted to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7409, May 10, 2007). Thus, the Plaintiff shall externally own ownership.