The legality of the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of title trust by the cause of the registration

The cause of registration is nothing more than the past juristic act, and in the registration, it cannot be the object of confirmation because it is nothing more than the legal requirement that causes the present legal relationship. Therefore, the lawsuit seeking confirmation that the cause of registration is not the sale, but the title trust or the termination of title trust is unlawful.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

west-gu iron

Steel Credit

1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment to the effect that with respect to the 108-3 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan City, the Dongdaemun-gu District Court, the Dongdaemun-gu registry office of Sep. 12, 1989, which was received on September 12, 1989, confirmed that the reason for registration is the title trust, and that the reason for registration of transfer of ownership, which was made on September 12, 1989, is confirmed as the title trust, and that the ownership transfer registration, which was made on November 25, 1993, was confirmed as the reason for registration, is the title trust termination.

On September 12, 1989, the Plaintiff decided to title trust the real estate stated in the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and completed the registration of title transfer under the Defendant’s name as Seoul Civil District Court Dongdaemun-gu registry office on September 12, 1989. However, the cause for registration was made on September 12, 1989 for convenience, and was decided to terminate the above title trust on December 23, 1993, and again completed the registration of title transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on December 23, 1993, and the cause for registration was also made on November 25, 1993, and therefore, each of the above causes for registration is not the title trust and title trust, but the title trust is not the object of confirmation under the private law, and thus, the Defendant is not entitled to confirmation of the legal relationship or legal interest of the instant lawsuit, and thus, is not the object of confirmation under the private law.

On the other hand, the subject of a lawsuit for confirmation must be the current rights or legal relations in principle, and in this case, the legal relationship refers to the legal relationship for a specific person or object arising from the legal effect of the requirement fact by applying the law to the specific facts. Therefore, not only the past legal relations but also the facts which meet the current legal requirements in order to cause the current legal relations can not be the subject of confirmation. Thus, the grounds for registration for which the plaintiff is seeking confirmation to the lawsuit in this case are not only the past legal relations but also the current legal relations or legal relations. It is not proven that the cause of registration is nothing more than the current legal relations or the current legal relations (the plaintiff claims that there is a benefit of confirmation in relation to the issue of tax imposition due to the above transfer of ownership, but it cannot be said that there is a legal interest of immediate confirmation, and the issue of tax imposition is sufficient to dispute the tax lawsuit in this case, so it cannot be said that it can be said that the plaintiff is merely the object of the confirmation of the legal relationship between a specific person and a specific person in this case's legal relationship.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is deemed to lack the requirements for protection of rights as a lawsuit for confirmation. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.

The number of judges' second and second judges' succession (Presiding Judge)