소유권이전등기말소등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
In around 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the name of the Defendant, an ASEAN, but the purchase fund was fully borne by the Plaintiff and sought implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name in the future of the Plaintiff on the ground that it is real estate of the Plaintiff.
However, a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the present registered titleholder in a way to restore the real name of registration by a person who has already registered ownership in his/her future or acquired ownership by law. The legal nature of the claim is the claim for the removal of interference based on ownership.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Da37894 delivered on September 20, 2001). In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a registration indicating ownership in the future, or that the Plaintiff acquired ownership in accordance with the provisions of law.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.
(The Defendant stated in the application dated March 6, 2017 that “the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim is recognized,” but this is merely a right confession that does not bind the court.