소유권이전등기 등
1. Of the part against Defendant C, the part of the lower judgment ordering payment is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff B’s appeal, real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and the person claiming that the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s trust under the name of another person shall be liable to prove the relevant title trust.
(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479 Decided October 29, 2015). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C entrusted the title of each of the real estate listed in [Attachment 1] through (4) of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant D, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding title trust or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence
2. As to the appeal by Defendant C
A. It shall be deemed to have been ordered to implement the procedure for transferring ownership;
The judgment below
According to its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the real estate sales contract concluded by the Plaintiffs and Defendant C on March 28, 2008 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) concluded by the Plaintiffs and Defendant C on March 28, 2008 was rescinded or terminated as a result of the delay of the Plaintiffs’ performance, and it is difficult to view that Defendant C’s obligation to transfer ownership on the instant No. 1, 2, and 4 real estate based on the instant
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on impossibility of performance or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.