beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단41110

소유권이전등기말소등

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 14, 2007 due to sale and purchase on April 30, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, which was owned by the Defendant, and ① the purchaser of the instant real estate from the Defendant is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, who is not the Plaintiff.

② The Defendant and C agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff, and prepares a false sales contract with the Plaintiff as the purchaser.

③ The Plaintiff did not intend to purchase the instant real estate and did not grant C the right of representation to purchase the instant real estate. Since a sales contract was made in the name of the Plaintiff contrary to the Plaintiff’s intent, the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff is invalid.

④ The registration shall be cancelled as a cause invalidation without acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate.

⑤ Since the Defendant was aware of the fact that the purchaser was C from the beginning, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff under Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is null and void. The ownership of the instant real estate shall be returned to the Defendant

Therefore, a judgment, such as the statement of claim, is sought.

2. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including each number) is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Rather, according to the facts found in this court, in the case of Incheon District Court 2012Kadan209338 and the Incheon District Court 2013Na31090, the appellate court, the issue was whether the party to the sales contract of the instant real estate is the plaintiff or C, or whether the title trust relation with the instant real estate is a contract title trust or a three-party registered title trust. The above court is about the instant real estate.