logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.05 2016나67042
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the "real estate 13" listed in the attached Form No. 6, 12 is "real estate 15", "85,00" listed in the attached Table No. 2, "85,00" listed in the attached Table No. 8,50, and "85,000" listed in the attached Table No. 2, and "8,500" as stated in the attached Table No. 8,88 (b) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the real estate mentioned in the attached list No. 1 through 15 is the buyer, although the plaintiff entered into a sales contract as the buyer, it is completed in the name of D, E, according to each title trust agreement between the plaintiff, and E. The above title trust agreement and any change in real right thereunder are void in accordance with Article 4(2).

The defendant Young-gu is transferred from D and E under a gift agreement with the Plaintiff, which bears the burden of fostering the plaintiff to the tap-water circuits under the jurisdiction of the defendant Young-gu, so it does not fall under the "third party who cannot oppose the above invalidation" as provided by Article 4 (3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, and the transfer of registration to the defendant Young-gu is still null and void.

Since the defendant Water Association has a new interest based on the invalid registration as above, the transfer of registration to the defendant Water Association under the name D and E is still null and void.

On the other hand, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the seller on the above real estate is still valid.

Therefore, the plaintiff still has the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the seller, and in order to preserve the right, the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration from the seller in subrogation of the seller.

Attached Form

With respect to real estate listed in the list 16, 17, the defendant Young-gu is above.

arrow