소유권이전등기
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim and the selective claims added in the trial are all dismissed.
3.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. D, G, Defendant, E, and H are children of the network F (hereinafter “the network”). The Defendant is a third in the above five South Koreas, and the Plaintiff is the wife of H in the prevention of the Plaintiff.
B. On July 30, 1984, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of Do, South-Namnam-gun, the deceased owned on July 30, 1984 (hereinafter “instant land”). In other words, on September 10, 1986, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”).
C. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, and 6's evidence, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The land in this case was bequeathed from the deceased and title trust to the Defendant via D. Since the title trust was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case. 2) On May 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the land in this case from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 1,30 million, excluding KRW 20,000,000,000,0000,0000,000 won.
3) On May 21, 2014, the Defendant ordered H to purchase the instant land by telephone, and on May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on the instant land by transferring KRW 20 million to the Defendant on May 22, 2014, with the Plaintiff’s consent thereto. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 130 million, at the same time, to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) is not a title trust from H, but rather purchased from H or was paid in kind by H.
The plaintiff is the land of this case.