소유권이전등기말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) add to the part concerning the determination of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court; and (b) refer to the determination of the Plaintiff’s new assertion in the trial, except for the addition of the determination of the Plaintiff’s new assertion as stated in paragraph (3) below; and (c) refer
2. In addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following parts shall be added to 7, 8, 12, 20, 23 of the judgment of the court of first instance on 3 pages 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance:
④ On July 6, 2010, the Defendant or the FF acting for the Defendant remitted KRW 30,981,400 to a certified judicial scrivener I for registration, such as registration tax, related to the registration of ownership transfer of this case. On October 29, 2010, the Defendant withdraws KRW 154,421,940 from the Defendant’s Korea Cmat Bank Account to pay KRW 154,443,880 as gift tax related to the registration of ownership transfer of this case. If it is merely a simple title trust relationship, there is no reason to assume the Defendant’s expenses worth KRW 185,00,000,000.
7) On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the Defendant, in collusion with F, received the instant real estate from the Deceased, and the Plaintiff was subsequently aware of this fact and demanded the Deceased to withdraw the donation, and thus, the Deceased refused it. However, the method of division of property is difficult for the Deceased to restore the instant real estate already donated to the Defendant in the name of the Deceased, and thus, it should be divided into the Plaintiff’s name into H site and its ground buildings in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, as well. Although the Plaintiff was recognized to have donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted that the title trust between the Deceased and the Defendant was only claimed while filing the instant lawsuit to the effect that the said division of property was impossible due to the death of the Deceased.
3. We decide on the Plaintiff’s new argument.