소유권이전등기
1. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs (Appointeds) and Appointeds D are dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party D.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and such reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
(However, the part regarding the "1. Plaintiffs' assertion" in Articles 2 and 3 of the first instance court's decision 2 and 3, which is the second instance court's decision 2. The part regarding the separate final and conclusive decision 3.
1. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiff, Defendant, and F, as the primary cause of the claim, have some of the Plaintiff’s shares since 1/3 of each of the instant land transferred to the designated parties D, while F’s shares are transferred to C.
As the Plaintiff agreed to own shares, the Plaintiff and F shall complete the registration of ownership transfer in the attached Form 18, 5, 14, 15, 16, 10, 17, 17, and 18 of the land in this case with the order of each of the items indicated in the attached Table 18, 5, 14, 15, 16, 10, 17, and 18 of the “1” portion of “1,415 square meters (hereinafter “1 portion”), the Defendant agreed to specify the same appraisal portion, “3” portion, and “F” portion of “4,” respectively, and the Plaintiff and F shall complete the registration of ownership transfer for convenience.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs terminate the mutual title trust by delivering a duplicate of the instant complaint. As such, the Defendant should implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the termination of mutual title trust with respect to the shares of 3,037.18/7,041 of the “A” portion.
B. Even if it is deemed that the aforementioned sectional ownership agreement between the Plaintiff, F, and the Defendant does not take effect, the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and F purchased the instant land and M 44 square meters prior to the instant claim, and each one-third share was held in title trust with the Defendant in excess of 1/3, even though they decided to share more than 1/3,388/7,041 shares, and such title trust agreement is valid.
Therefore, the plaintiffs terminated the above title trust agreement with the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant raised objection against the plaintiffs as to the share of 694/7,041 out of the land of this case and M 44 square meters prior to M.