[소유권이전등기][공1990.1.15(864),125]
Where a person who has entrusted a real estate purchaser's name to another person transfers the purchaser's status to a third person, the case denying the seller's obligation to transfer the seller's ownership.
(A) If the name of the actual buyer under the sales contract is merely a person who lends the name of the actual buyer and is not a person who actually purchased the real estate, as long as the actual buyer (B) has already transferred the status of the buyer to another person with the consent of the seller, the seller has no obligation to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the form of
Articles 568, 186, and 103 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Meu30771 Decided November 28, 1989
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other
[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1
Seoul High Court Decision 88Na14729 delivered on October 24, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, upon examining the sales contract (No. 3) of the real estate of this case, the court below revealed the fact that the above non-party 2 purchased the real estate of this case from August 15, 1986 between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who represented the defendant, in order to purchase the real estate of this case at KRW 46,00,000. However, considering the evidence in its holding, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the president of the non-party 3, and the vice president of the non-party 2, the non-party 2, who purchased the above real estate of this case, in the name of the above non-party 2, the non-party 2, who purchased the above real estate of this case, under the agreement of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who purchased the above real estate of this case, in the name of the non-party 2, the purchaser of the above real estate of this case, with the consent of the non-party 1, the vice-party 2, the above.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit and the incomplete hearing. The arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)