(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단212244

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) 대전지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단212244

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff newly built the said housing with the Plaintiff’s cost and effort around March 2013, by obtaining a construction permit for the attached property indicated in the name of the head of the Gu in Daejeon-gu D, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu on the ground of 182 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. Meanwhile, on May 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from the first policeman to E for the instant new housing construction project, provided the instant housing to E as security, and changed the name of the owner of the instant housing into E on May 16, 2012.

However, unlike the promise to lend KRW 300 million, E lent only KRW 98 million.

C. Upon completion of the instant house, E changes the name of the owner to the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on March 28, 2013 by obtaining approval from the head of Daejeon District Office for use of the instant house upon obtaining approval.

However, as seen above, the ownership of the instant house is owned by the Plaintiff, and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant is valid only within the scope of the secured purpose, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant house to the Plaintiff on the condition

2. As to whether the Plaintiff changed the name of the owner of the instant house to E for the purpose of security, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the instant house and site to E for the purpose of discharging the existing obligation to E, etc., and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit since it was recognized that the Plaintiff changed the name of the owner of the instant house to E.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2014.01.17 2013가합836

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2015.01.12 2014고정347

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.08.25 2013고단133

-대전지방법원 2019.11.07 2018가단218103

-수원지방법원 2014.04.10 2013노5972