[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1983(민사편),415]
Where a title trustee of a real estate gets married with his/her wife and transferred the ownership of the real estate to the name of consolation money, the validity of the registration of ownership transfer.
If the 1/2 equity right holder of the real estate has acquired the remaining 1/2 shares in title trust with the other 1/2 shares in his own name and completed the registration of ownership transfer as if he were divorced in collusion with the Embezzlement's wife and sold all of the above real estate to his wife under the pretext of consolation money, the above registration shall be deemed null and void because it was caused by a false trade which has conspired with each other. Even if the sale of the above real estate is not the most trade, even if the above real estate is not the sale, it would result in acquiring the property as consolation money by participating in collusion with the husband knowing that her husband intended to embezzled his shares among the above real estate, and thus, it constitutes a juristic act whose content is contrary to good morals and other social order, and thus the above transfer registration of ownership transfer as to the shares of the above truster is also null and void.
Articles 103 and 108 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Daegu District Court (82 Gohap3013)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
On February 9, 1982, the defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on February 8, 1982, receipt by the Daegu District Court, Busan District Court No. 2027, the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership on the ground of the sale on the part of the real estate recorded in the attached list.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Revocation of the original judgment;
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed,
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
In light of the above facts and records, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who were the co-party 1 and the non-party 2's share in the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's testimony.
Therefore, the plaintiff's objection seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the share of one half of the total real estate in this case is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal against this is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.
Judges Lee Do-dong Park Gyeong-dong, Judge Lee (Presiding Judge)