명의신탁해지로 인한 소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is a dead E (Death on February 6, 2002)'s figure by finding out the deceased E (Death).
B. The ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground of inheritance due to a consultation and division made on February 6, 1993 in the name of E on April 8, 1993, while the net F was owned by the net E, a 668 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 20, 2006 on the land of this case due to inheritance by consultation and division dated February 6, 2002.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 5 evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion asserts that since the plaintiffs and the network E jointly inherit the land of this case after the death of the network F and the trust of the title to the network E, the defendant who comprehensively succeeded to the status of the trustee of the network E, the defendant is liable for the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of title trust with respect to each of the shares of 1/3 of the plaintiffs among the land of this case.
B. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the facts as seen earlier, namely, the fact that the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection against the registration for transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant from February 6, 2002 to April 20, 2006, when the registration for transfer of ownership was completed under the name of the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge that a title trust agreement existed between the Plaintiffs and the network E with respect to the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.