logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.01 2013가합9747
소유권이전등록
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2006, No. 9424, which was received on February 27, 2006, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon registry office, and the Defendant’s ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) was completed on December 26, 2005 with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, which was originally owned by C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D with the Incheon District Court 2009Gahap17796, and the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and D on June 4, 2010, “D shall pay KRW 260,000,000 to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2010.”

(c) D is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion D is that a title trust agreement with the Defendant for the instant land was concluded, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant land with C who did not know such title trust agreement, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with that sales contract.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant, a title trustee, acquired the ownership of the instant land in accordance with the so-called “contractual title trust” legal doctrine, the Defendant, a title truster, was obligated to refund KRW 800,000,000 for the purchase price of the instant land borne by D with unjust enrichment, acquisition tax of KRW 28,00,000, registration tax of KRW 280,000,000, brokerage commission of KRW 12,60,000,000, etc.

The plaintiff, as a creditor, seek the return of the above unjust enrichment against the defendant by subrogation of D without financial ability, within the scope of the above preserved right.

B. Determination 1: The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was a title trust agreement on the instant land between D and the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the instant land with C, who is not aware of such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

arrow