Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

December 3, 2009

1. The defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real estate in the separate sheet to the plaintiff as to each real estate in the separate sheet.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 44,640,00 won with 5% interest per annum from August 18, 2002 to October 28, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Nonparty 1 (Non-Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2006), Nonparty 2, the Defendant, and Non-Party 3’s five South-North Korea, as the title holder of each real estate indicated in Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the attached Table (hereinafter “real estate of this case 1, 3, 4, and 5”) and the ownership transfer registration of forest land of 747 square meters (hereinafter “real estate number 3 omitted prior to subdivision”) prior to 1,884 square meters (hereinafter “land number 2 omitted”), the same (number 4 omitted), the forest land of 3,471 square meters (hereinafter “land number 4 omitted), and the forest land of 50 square meters (hereinafter “land number 5 omitted), and the forest land of 1,884 square meters (hereinafter “land number 98,97,98,99,98,99,99,98,99,97,98,99,99,9,9,99).

B. On August 8, 2001, the real estate (number 3 omitted) was registered by dividing it into the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the real estate of 152 square meters (number 1 omitted) prior to the Seosung-si (hereinafter “real estate number 1 omitted”), and the said (number 1 omitted) real estate was changed to the road on August 18, 2001.

C. On August 18, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 17, 2001 with respect to the real estate (number 1 omitted) to Nonparty 4.

D. On January 9, 2002, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on December 28, 2001, with respect to the portion of 1785/184 out of the forest (number 2 omitted), with respect to the portion of 99/184 out of the forest above to the non-party 6, and with respect to the remaining portion of 99/184 out of the forest above, respectively.

E. On May 7, 2003, the Defendant: (a) donated 1/2 of each share to Nonparty 7, the Plaintiff’s children, Nonparty 8, the Defendant’s children; (b) (number 4 omitted); and (c) forest land (number 5 omitted); and (d) completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the above donation on May 9, 2003.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-5, Evidence No. 2-1 through 5, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 12-1 through 6, Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 1-1 through 8, Evidence No. 2-6, 7, 8, Evidence No. 3-1 through 8, Evidence No. 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for transfer registration of ownership

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff inherited the real estate of this case, (number 2 omitted), forest land (number 4 omitted), forest land (number 4 omitted), forest land (number 5 omitted), and forest land owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, which are property owned by the plaintiff and the defendant and owned by the plaintiff as a long-term grandchild. As the plaintiff faces a crisis that the plaintiff would lose ownership by filing a request for auction, etc. as to each of the above real estate due to economic circumstances in around 1999, the plaintiff was faced with a crisis that the plaintiff would lose ownership by filing a request for auction. The plaintiff's Dong and the defendant's sibling 1 sent money to the plaintiff and the defendant, and the above non-party 1 paid the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff to the plaintiff and entrusted the plaintiff with the title of each of the above real estate to the defendant. Since the above title trust agreement is null and void by the Act on the

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since the real estate of this case, (number 2 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 4 omitted), and (number 5 omitted) forest land are actually purchased from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's title trust assertion is groundless.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) (Land Number 2 omitted) In forests and fields, the graves owned by the Plaintiff’s ancestor group were installed, but thereafter, there is no grave in the said forests and fields as a result of cremation and burial of remains for charnel.

B) On August 13, 1999, the Plaintiff prepared a receipt with the purport that the Defendant was paid KRW 305,800,000 with the purchase price of each of the instant real estate, (number 2 omitted), forest land (number 4 omitted), forest land (number 5 omitted), and forest land (number 5 omitted), but the Defendant did not actually pay the said amount to the Plaintiff. On August 10, 1999, the Defendant borrowed the said amount on the same day from Nonparty 1, who was residing in the United States on August 10, 199, the Defendant did not fully pay the said amount to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not fully repay the said amount from 20,705,000 ($ 185,000).

C) The Defendant repaid 322,64,168 won in total, including the money remitted by Nonparty 1 through other relatives, with the secured debt on each of the instant real property, and cancelled the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant real property, and paid acquisition tax imposed upon the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant real property under the Defendant’s name. The aforementioned expenses paid to the certified judicial scrivener who represented each of the above procedures, expenses paid to the above certified judicial scrivener, expenses incurred in meals with the above certified judicial scrivener, and transportation expenses, etc. used to mislead the registry.

D) On September 26, 1999, the Defendant sent a letter to Nonparty 1 by recording the details of payment as referred to in the above sub-paragraph (b) on a date, and sent it to Nonparty 1’s reputation and completed the registration of the land without any defect, thereby making it impossible for any third party to commit a violation, and making a decision to see. As seen earlier, the Defendant demanded Nonparty 1 to send again a letter stating that he had confirmed the above lending retroactively as of August 25, 199, with the words “the loan certificate issued in the name of the Defendant as of August 10, 199,” and to send it to the Defendant.

마) 소외 1의 아내는 1999. 10. 6.경 피고에게, 큰댁(원고)에게 돈을 보내 도와드리느라 어려움이 많다는 내용의 편지를 보내면서 피고가 고향땅(이 사건 각 부동산 등)의 산소 벌초와 종친회 등을 맡아서 처리해줄 것을 부탁하고, 이 사건 각 부동산 등에 관하여 부과되는 세금은 팩스로 보내주면 비용을 송금해 주겠다고 하였다.

F) Around March 27, 2000, the Defendant borrowed money from the Namyang Agricultural Cooperative and set up a collateral security in the name of Nonparty 3’s husband Nonparty 9,250,000 under the name of the maximum debt amount 26,60,000 won with respect to the instant 2,3 real estate. Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff, and the remaining siblings, with a view to preventing the Defendant from disposing of each of the instant real estate and forests (number 2 omitted), as to the instant 1, and 2 real estate, respectively, on September 28, 200, with respect to the instant 3,4,5 real estate and forests (number 2 omitted).

G) On March 8, 2006, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s representative, prepared a real estate lease agreement stating the Defendant’s representative status while leasing the instant real estate and the instant house owned by the Plaintiff on its land to Nonparty 10. On February 2, 2007, the Defendant sent to Nonparty 10 a document stating that the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s representative and notified that the lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the lease term.

H) On December 11, 2006, the Defendant demanded on December 11, 2006, Nonparty 1 to transfer the above money to the Defendant when sending the receipt for payment of the aggregate land tax, property tax, etc. on each of the real estate of this case, notified to the Defendant from 2000 to 2006, and the notice for tax unpaid in 2006.

I) On November 24, 2006, Nonparty 2 paid KRW 400,280 for the property tax of 2006 imposed on the Defendant regarding the instant real estate and its ground buildings. Nonparty 7 paid KRW 1,94,940 for the real estate tax of 2006, which was imposed on the Defendant on March 22, 2007, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,435,780 for the comprehensive real estate tax of 207, which was imposed on the Defendant on December 9, 2008, and Nonparty 2 again paid KRW 743,580 for the property tax of 208, 2008, and KRW 232,230,810 for the real estate tax of 208, which was imposed on the Defendant on the same day.

(j) On April 2008, the Plaintiff, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, the Defendant’s influence, donated and preserved money to preserve the ground of the house in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s influence, and Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s influence, for the purpose of preserving the ground of the house in the name of the Plaintiff, the ○○○○○ ○○○○○, a handout of the land. The Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that only

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence 9-1 through 14, Eul evidence 14, 15, Eul evidence 16-9, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 21, 28-1, 29, Eul evidence 29, 30, 31, and 32, Eul evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 14, 15, 16-9, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 20, and Eul evidence 28-1, 29, 30, 31, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances known from the above facts, the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of this case, (number 2 omitted), forest (number 4 omitted), forest (number 5 omitted), forest land under the name of the defendant to preserve the Plaintiff’s right holder’s request for auction from the creditors, the defendant bears all the expenses incurred in the preservation of the Plaintiff’s right to each real estate of this case, such as expenses for repayment of obligations, etc. to preserve the ownership of the real estate of this case. Despite the absence of any monetary relationship between the defendant and the non-party 9, the establishment registration of a neighboring real estate in the name of the non-party 9 was completed in the real estate of this case, (number 2 omitted), (number 4 omitted), forest (number 5 omitted), (number 5 omitted), and (number 1 omitted for the creditors’ right to real estate of this case to obtain the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of this case to the non-party 1, and the fact that the non-party 1 sent money to the Plaintiff as his agent for the sale of each real estate of this case.

3. Determination on claim for payment of damages

(a) A claim for damages;

The real estate before subdivision (number 3 omitted) and forest land (number 2 omitted) are real estate under title trust to the Defendant by the Plaintiff; the Defendant sold (number 1 omitted) real estate divided from (number 3 omitted) real estate before subdivision to the Defendant on August 17, 2001 and completed the registration of ownership transfer by the buyer on August 18, 2001; and (b) forest land (number 2 omitted) sold on December 28, 2001 and completed the registration of ownership transfer by each buyer on January 9, 202. As seen earlier, in the case of a two-party registered title trust, the truster may exercise the right to claim for exclusion from interference based on ownership; accordingly, the trustee is obliged to cancel or transfer the registration to the truster; and therefore, the trustee’s arbitrary disposal of real estate granted the title trust constitutes a tort against the truster, who is the owner; and therefore, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the disposition of each real estate.

B. Determination as to damages amount

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of compensation to be paid by the Defendant, damages incurred by the Defendant’s arbitrary disposal of the real estate entrusted under the name of the trustee is equivalent to the market price of the real estate at the time of the tort of the trustee. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the market appraisal process of Nonparty 11 in this court, the market price of the real estate is as follows: (number 1 omitted) 3,192,000 won around August 18, 2001, and (number 2 omitted) 41,48,000 won around January 9, 2002 (number 1 omitted), respectively, the market price of the real estate at the market price of the real estate (number 1 omitted) is recognized as the market price of August 18, 200, multiplied by the market price fluctuation rate of 1.02,02, which reflects the fluctuation rate of land price based on the officially announced land price of August 18, 2001.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for losses from the disposal of each of the above real estate entrusted to the plaintiff at his own discretion, (number 1 omitted), the total amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the above disposal of the forest land (number 2 omitted), 44,640,00 won (number 3,192,00 won + 41,448,000 won) and damages for losses from August 18, 2002 to October 28, 2009, which is the delivery date of the application for correction of the purport of the claim and cause of the above disposal, which is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiff shall be accepted for all reasons, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Young-kon (Presiding Judge)