사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 2 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court shall change "Receipt No. 14344" in Part 6 of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance to "Receipt No. 1435," and the following judgments are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the second part of the judgment following the first part of the judgment, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
In addition, the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate Real Name Act") shall apply.
Where a title trust relationship is established between the actual obligor of the purchase price and the nominal holder in purchasing real estate after its enforcement, even if the title truster entered into an agreement to transfer the title of the real estate upon the request of the actual obligor of the purchase price, such agreement shall also be deemed null and void, on the premise that a title trust agreement is null and void under the Real Estate Real Name Act, as it falls under the category of seeking the return of the real estate held in title trust or the disposal proceeds thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da35117, Nov. 9, 2006; 2011Da103472, Mar. 14, 2013). Furthermore, even if the title truster and the title trustee entered into an invalid title trust agreement and entered into the title truster’s claim for ownership transfer registration on the premise of such agreement, even if the title truster entered into the provisional registration on the title trust real estate under the title trust agreement and completed the principal registration upon request by the title truster, such agreement is null and void under the Real Estate Name Act.