Where each specific part of the land is sold entirely and the registration has been made, the title trust relationship between the final buyer where the registration of ownership transfer has been made.

Where each of the specific parts of one parcel of land has been purchased entirely, and such registration has been made, the title trust relationship between the first purchaser and the purchaser may be deemed to have been established, and the latter purchaser shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the title trustee.

Article 262 of the Civil Act, Article 89 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

December 9, 1980, Decision 79Da634 decided Dec. 9, 1980 (In summary, Civil Title Trust (7) 20 pages, No. 1470, No. 1480)

No. Objection

Choi Ho-ho et al.

1. The plaintiff

A. The Defendants, from among the 714 square meters large 714 square meters of 205-1, connected each point in order to each point in (d), (e), (f), (g), (g), (h), and (h) of the attached sheet of the 28,27,26, 25, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,20 and 28 of the [Attachment Map] 28,27, 26, 25, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 200 square meters, shall implement each procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due

B. A ship connecting each point of 28,27,26,25,7,24,23,22,21,20,20,28 of the above drawings, which is Defendant Damage, shall be removed from the unit of the household house of the 37.25 square meters of the building site of the mentmen' house of the mentmen's 28,27,27,26,25,27,247,23,23,22,22,7,17,18,19,20,20, and28 of the above drawings; and (d), (e), (f), and (g) part of the site of the building site of the 196.25 square meters.

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

3.The provisions of paragraph 1(b) may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The portion of the ownership transfer registration for Defendant 1 is presumed to have been completed by Nonparty 1 (No dispute over the establishment between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, and Defendant 2). No. 1 (No. 3-2) is deemed to have been duly established by testimony of the witness, and No. 3-1 (No. 4) is deemed to have been established between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, No. 4-2 (No. 7), No. 7 (No. 5), and No. 7 (No. 6-2), and the portion of the ownership transfer registration for Defendant 1 was indicated to the Plaintiff at least 6-1 (No. 7-1) and the remaining portion of the ownership transfer registration for Defendant 6-1) in accordance with the separate sheet No. 8 (No. 6-1). The remaining portion of the ownership transfer registration for Defendant 1 was purchased by Nonparty 6 (No. 7-1) and the remaining portion of the ownership transfer registration for Defendant 6-1) in accordance with the separate sheet No. 96-1 (No. 716-2).

Therefore, the total of 440 square meters in the separate drawing (h), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (g) part 248 square meters in the site of this case purchased by the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the sole ownership of the plaintiff in the internal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant Ye-ho and his successor, and the defendant Ye-ho and his successor. However, each share ownership transfer registration made in the name of the defendants with respect to the above part on the registry has not been merely the fact that the plaintiff made a title trust to the defendants. Since the title trust against the defendants on the above part is terminated by the delivery of the complaint of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendants are obligated to transfer each share of the above separate drawing (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (h) part 440 square meters in the separate sheet of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, each of the co-ownership shares registration procedures for the trust owner shall be implemented on September 14, 1983.

In addition, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that Defendant Dohn constructed and owned a mentbrote menta 37.25 square meters of the house site of the building site in the mentbrote string 37.25 square meters of the house site of the building site of this case, and there is no evidence against the above (d), (e), (f), and (g), that Defendant Dohn is the sole owner of the land of this case, and that Defendant Dohn has the legitimate authority to occupy the above part of the land of this case in this case without any assertion and proof other than the claim that the land of this case is the joint ownership of the plaintiff and the defendant, it is obligated to remove the building owned by Defendant Dohn and deliver the part of the land of this case to the owner of the building site.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the implementation of the above procedure for transfer registration of ownership to the defendants, removal of the above building and transfer of the land to the defendant knife is well-grounded, it shall be accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs, Article 199 of the same Act to the declaration of provisional execution, Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings

Judges Cho Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)