(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.22 2013가단28827

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.22 2013가단28827

소유권이전등기말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The plaintiff is the husband of C, and the defendant is C's words.

B. On October 12, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 71985 on October 12, 200 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

C. On the other hand, on May 6, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant apartment on the ground of sale with the Plaintiff on May 6, 2013 by the same registry office No. 5473, May 9, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's apartment of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and although the plaintiff did not sell the apartment of this case to the defendant, the defendant conspired with the plaintiff's wife and concluded a false sales contract on the apartment of this case using his identification card and seal imprint, etc. without the plaintiff's consent, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant for the apartment of this case is null and void. Even if the defendant actually borne the purchase fund of this case, the owner of the apartment of this case is still the plaintiff, and the defendant can only claim the return of the amount equivalent to the purchase fund of this case to the plaintiff, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to the apartment of this case is not consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership on the apartment of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's apartment house of this case is purchased by the defendant with all of the purchase funds, and the plaintiff is merely entrusted with only the registration name, and the defendant is the actual owner.

In particular, the plaintiff and his wife, around March 2013, are the plaintiff's husband and wife since the plaintiff was sentenced to the Maamamba.

참조조문

-부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가합101707

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.20 2017가합33919

-대전지방법원 2016.04.27 2014가단227642

-창원지방법원 2015.07.24 2014가단76888

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.01 2018가단5206168