beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.09 2018가단95

대위에 의한 소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 22, 2014, when the father C of the Defendant was liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 68,892,012, he/she purchased D-owned building E and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from D on April 22, 2014, and the Defendant under title trust registered the ownership transfer of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant registration”).

B. Meanwhile, since the act of title trust is null and void because it violates the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, C may seek cancellation of the registration of this case against the defendant, and the plaintiff primarily seeks cancellation of the registration of this case against the defendant by subrogation of C.

C. Even if it is impossible to seek cancellation of the registration of this case against the defendant, the defendant takes profits equivalent to KRW 200 million, which is the purchase price of the real estate of this case, without any legal grounds, and C reports damages equivalent to the same amount, and therefore C shall have a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount against the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff claims 68,892,012 of the plaintiff's claim amount and its delay damages against the defendant in lieu of C.

2. The fact that the plaintiff has a certain amount of claim against C, although the plaintiff has a difference in the amount to C, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, there are claims for preservation.

I would like to say.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that C has held the title trust of the real estate of this case to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, insofar as there is no subrogation claim, the plaintiff's above assertion is without any need to examine the remainder of the claim.

The plaintiff is the same as the conjunctive claim of this case and against the defendant.