beta
Title
The title truster's right to claim ownership transfer registration against the seller who is indirectly occupied is not in progress by prescription.
Summary
In a three-party registered title trust agreement, if the title truster indirectly occupies his/her share through the title trustee, the title truster's right to claim ownership transfer registration against the seller is not in progress.
Related statutes
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Cases
Seoul Central District Court2015Kadan5097615 Registration of ownership transfer.
Plaintiff
Korea
Defendant
New △△△
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 2, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
October 16, 2015
Text
1. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on December 1, 1983 with respect to 1/2 shares of ○○○○○-○○-○ Forest 52,165 square meters, among ○○○○○○○-ri, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The oligopolistic shareholder of the ○○ Special Corporation, who is an oligopolistic shareholder, was delinquent in the national tax as indicated below.
No.
Items of Taxation
Legal date;
Deadline for payment
Amount in arrears ( won)
1
Value-added Tax
June 1, 2004
September 30, 2004
1,990,354,410
2
Global Income Tax
July 25, 2009
May 31, 2009
46,231,780
3
Value-added Tax
June 1, 1998
on June 30, 1998
53,889,740
4
Value-added Tax
December 31, 2000
March 31, 2001
20,621,090
5
Retirement income tax;
April 1, 2001
April 30, 2001
4,016,730
6
Value-added Tax
June 1, 2001
on June 30, 2001
3,534,320
Total
2,518,648,070
B. Around December 1, 1983, Song-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City purchased 52,165 square meters from the Defendant’s purchase of ○○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○-○, ○, 52,165 square meters of forests (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
다. 그 무렵 송☆☆는 임♤♤에게 이 사건 부동산 중 1/2 지분을 대금 4,500만 원에 매도하면서, 편의상 이 사건 부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기는 전부 임♤♤ 앞으로 마치기로 하는 명의신탁약정을 체결하였다.
라. 이에 따라 이 사건 부동산 전부에 관하여 1983. 12. 2. "1983. 12. 1. 매매"를 원인으로 하여 피고로부터 임♤♤ 앞으로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.
마. 한편 송☆☆는 ○○○○지방법원 2008가단○○○○○호로 이 사건 부동산 중 임♤♤에게 매도하지 않은 1/2 지분(이하 '송☆☆ 지분'이라 한다)에 관한 임♤♤ 명의의 등기가 3자간 명의신탁약정에 의한 등기임을 전제로 매도인인 피고를 대위하여 임♤♤를 상대로 송☆☆ 지분에 관한 임♤♤ 명의의 소유권이전등기의 말소를 구하는 소를 제기하였다. 위 법원은 2009. 7. 28. 송☆☆의 청구를 받아들여 원고승소판결을 선고하였고, 임♤♤가 이에 불복하여 ○○고등법원 2009나○○○○○호로 항소하였으나 2010. 1. 22. 항소기각판결이 선고되었으며, 다시 임♤♤가 이에 불복하여 대법원 2010다○○○○○호로 상고하였으나 2010. 5. 19. 심리불속행판결이 확정되었다.
F. The Ministry of Song-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City is currently in the absence of any other financial resources.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, a creditor of the Si/Gun/Gu, may seek for the registration of transfer of ownership against the Defendant, the seller of the Si/Gun/Gu, in subrogation of the Si/Gun/Gu, for the implementation of the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale on December 1, 1983. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure of transfer of ownership for one-half shares of the Si/Gun/Gu from the real estate of the case of Song-
3. Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription
A. The defendant's assertion
On December 1, 1983, the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant in Song-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City was extinguished by prescription on December 1, 1993, since the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership was not exercised against the defendant after December 1, 1983.
B. Determination
The purchase of the instant real estate by the Defendant around December 1, 1983 by Song-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, around December 1, 1983, is clear that the instant lawsuit was filed on April 17, 2015 after ten years from the purchase.
Meanwhile, in cases where the buyer of a real estate continually occupies the real estate upon delivery, the extinctive prescription of the seller’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration does not run, and such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where the registration under a third party’s registered title trust becomes null and void upon the expiration of the effective period. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the title truster’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration against the seller who occupies the real estate upon delivery does not run (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26647, Dec. 12,
이 사건 부동산 중 송☆☆ 지분에 관한 임♤♤ 명의의 소유권이전등기가 3자간 명의신탁약정에 의한 등기임은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 수탁자인 임♤♤가 1983. 12. 2.부터 현재까지 이 사건 부동산을 계속하여 점유하여 오고 있는 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.
이러한 사실관계에 앞서 본 법리를 보태어 보면, 송☆☆는 1983. 12. 2.경부터 임♤♤를 통하여 송☆☆ 지분을 간접점유하고 있었다고 봄이 상당하고, 따라서 송☆☆의 피고에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권은 소멸시효가 진행하지 않는다고 할 것이다.
Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
4. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.