logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.07.10 2017가단13050
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On February 18, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on February 14, 2008 with respect to D’s real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “this case’s registration of transfer of ownership”). D thereafter reported to the Defendant B with Vietnam’s nationality on June 10, 2016.

D On April 3, 2017, Go Chang-gun E at the construction site located in Chang-gun E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and Defendant C, whose spouse is Defendant B, 3/5, and ASEAN inherited it as the share of 2/5.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, and 15 evidence, and the purport of the entire argument of the plaintiff as to the purport of the argument is not the actual donation to the deceased, but the plaintiff made a title trust to the deceased for the purpose of favorable international marriage of the deceased.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case is null and void as it is based on the title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased. The Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are obligated to implement each procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name with respect to their respective shares of inheritance.

Judgment

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of this case was completed based on a title trust agreement, rather than a gift recorded as the grounds for registration on the registry of the instant real estate, is difficult to believe that the statement on the evidence No. 13 was not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff trusted the instant real estate to the Deceased, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the above argument of the shipowner on a different premise.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

arrow