logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.09.24 2014다74919
소유권이전등기말소 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. In a case where a sales contract was mainly made for the main purpose of having a litigant conduct litigation, Article 6 of the Trust Act is null and void because even if the sales contract does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act by analogy, even if it does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act. The main issue is to be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the process and method of concluding the sales contract, interval between the

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4210, Dec. 6, 2002).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that the sales contract of this case between the plaintiff and the co-defendant D of the first instance trial is invalid as it was concluded with the main purpose of litigation in light of the following circumstances:

(1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to collateral security, etc. over the instant building was set, and only Defendant B and C, who owns only the site of the instant building, filed a lawsuit for removal of the instant building and received a final judgment in favor of him. Although D filed a lawsuit against G seeking the cancellation of the instant registration of collateral security transfer, which served as the basis of the instant auction against G, it was in the first instance judgment. However, even if D’s decision on permission for sale was issued during the instant auction procedure, and it was an imminent situation in which D’s loss of ownership was imminent, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract to purchase the instant building from D on February 14, 2012 for KRW 3 billion.

(2) The Plaintiff entered into the first contract on the instant building with D on July 1, 201 and filed the instant lawsuit.

arrow