명의회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 and all the arguments.
On January 3, 2005, the Plaintiff, jointly with the Defendant, purchased the housing above 580,000,000 won from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 294m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the above land.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant trade”) B.
On January 10, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on each of the instant land’s one-half shares due to the instant trade.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff purchased 6/10 shares in the instant land, and the Defendant purchased 4/10 shares in the instant land at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s shares were registered as 1/2 shares in each of the instant land due to a mistake in the process of ownership transfer registration, and the Plaintiff purchased 1/10 shares in the instant land, but the transfer registration
Therefore, the registration of the name of the defendant with respect to the 1/10 shares in the above land is an invalid registration without any cause.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of invalidation registration to the plaintiff who subrogated D.
B. In order for the Plaintiff to file a claim with the Defendant for the cancellation registration procedure of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant as to the share of 1/10 of the instant land in subrogation of D, the existence of the right to claim ownership transfer as to the share of 1/10 of the Plaintiff’s above land in subrogation of D, namely, the right to be preserved for the exercise of the obligee’s subrogation right, and for this purpose, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should have specified the Plaintiff’s share of 6/10 and the Defendant’s share of 4/10.
However, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is fully considered, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with D as above.