(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.12 2015가단122433

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.12 2015가단122433

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and B married on December 10, 1993, but divorced on March 5, 2007, but thereafter, on December 17, 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on December 16, 2008 (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”) was completed on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B on June 26, 2009, but on March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 81,565,544 to the National Bank. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B seeking the payment of indemnity amounting to KRW 81,275,03 and its delay damages with the Seoul Central District Court 2010dan10986, and was sentenced to a full favorable judgment on June 29, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the ownership transfer registration of this case was based on a title trust agreement between the Defendant and B, and is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. The Defendant, a title trustee, in subrogation of B, who is an insolvent debtor, seeks implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based

B. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case was completed between the Defendant and B solely on the basis of each description of evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 10 with respect to each real estate in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion has no reason to further examine the remainder of the issue.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률 제4조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.06.16 2019가단215381

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.01.31 2017가단75818

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2017.07.18 2016가단12504

-서울고등법원 2018.07.06 2018재나220

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.13 2017가단209239