(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나11701

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나11701

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except for the cases of 3 pages No. 11 through No. 45 as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Determination 1) In order to establish a title trust relationship with respect to a ship, there must be an agreement between the truster and the trustee on the establishment of a title trust relationship. In the registration of the ownership transfer with respect to the instant ship in the future of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the title truster of the instant ship, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether there was a title trust agreement or a ship entrusted operation agreement with the Defendant, the health class, A, 4, 7, 16, 2-4, 6, 7, and 7 (the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① There is no objective evidence concerning the instant vessel, such as a title trust agreement or a disposal document evidencing that there was an agreement on vessel entrusted operation, etc.

② At the time of the instant vessel sales contract, the value of the instant vessel was KRW 524,182,00 and the value of the fishery permit right was KRW 1,014,182,00,000, in total, KRW 490,000. The sum of the maximum debt amount regarding the right to collateral security held on the instant vessel was KRW 948,00,000. The actual value of the instant vessel appears to exceed KRW 66,182,00,00, which is the difference between the said value and the maximum debt amount. The Plaintiff was also liable for several persons other than the said right to collateral security.

In such a situation, it is difficult to view that the Defendant assumed legal responsibilities, such as a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, and concluded a title trust or a ship entrusted operation agreement with respect to the instant vessel.

On the other hand, the defendant's side after the transfer of ownership to the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단51466

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.12.17 2020가단103798

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.02.20 2019가단76150

-광주지방법원 2016.09.29 2015가합2364