beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Sejong District Court Sejong District Court No. 1767, Feb. 23, 1973 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on February 17, 1973.
B. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant, as the spouse of C, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) under the receipt of No. 30685 on November 18, 2010 by the Daejeon District Court Sejong District Court’s Sejong Branch Office for the reason of sale and purchase of the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around November 2010, the Plaintiff decided to grant an onerous donation to C at the cost of supporting the Plaintiff’s spouse deceased Plaintiff’s deceased spouse DD, but there was no fact that C entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on the instant real estate. However, C concluded a title trust agreement with the Defendant and directly completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate to the Defendant. However, C did not faithfully perform the burden of supporting the Plaintiff and the deceased D. Therefore, C is obligated to cancel the donation agreement on the instant real estate. Accordingly, C is obligated to restore the ownership to its original state, and C is obliged to cancel the title trust agreement between C and the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and seek the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the Defendant, even if the sales contract was concluded between C and the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff for the preservation of the right to claim restitution. Thus, the Defendant did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant cancelled the above sales contract on the ground of default, and cancelled the former registration procedure.
B. Judgment 1 on the Plaintiff’s primary argument is examined, A.