2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff at the first and second instances.

The defendant will implement the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration completed on November 9, 2004 by the Daegu District Court No. 56074 (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of the claim for ownership transfer of this case") with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The Plaintiff: (1) the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with Nonparty 1 and 2, who is the actual owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate”), and completed the ownership preservation registration under the name of the Defendant; (2) Meanwhile, Nonparty 3 agreed with Nonparty 1 and 2 to receive the instant real estate as payment in lieu of the claim amounting to KRW 110,00,000,000, which he had against him; (3) concluded a purchase promise with the Defendant to secure the right to demand ownership transfer; and (4) agreed to purchase the instant real estate with Nonparty 1, with the purchase price as KRW 16,00,00,000,000,000,000 won, which was established on the instant apartment; and (8) the remainder,8,000,000,000 won, was paid to Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 1, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the ownership preservation registration under the title of the instant real estate was null and void between the Defendant 2 and the title holder.

2. Determination

In light of the legislative intent of Article 4(3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the term “third party” refers to a person who has a new interest with a title trustee on the basis of being a real right holder. On the other hand, a person who entered into a contract to acquire a real right to real estate with a title truster and only takes the appearance of the name of the title trustee and received only the registration from the title trustee does not constitute a third party under the above legal provision. Thus, even though the registration is valid in conformity with the substantive relationship, the person cannot assert the validity of his registration, which is based on the provision of Article 4(3) of the same Act, based on the invalid title trust registration. Furthermore, the title truster entered into a disposal contract with a third party to establish his disposal act, and thus, the title truster requested the title trustee to complete the registration in the future, and thus, the title trustee cooperates only with the title truster and made the registration in accordance with the title trustee’s intent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration constitutes a valid legal person under the above provision or the title trustee.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)