beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2.
On December 31, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 30, 2003 (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on December 30, 2003.
B. On July 13, 2004, the land category of the Dong-dong C is divided into 860 square meters and 10 square meters in Ansan-si, Dong-si. On July 14, 2004, the land category was changed on July 14, 2004, and on February 11, 2010, the land category was changed to 3 large 860 square meters in Ansan-si, Dong-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. D’s death on September 27, 2015, and the Defendant, who was the wife of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”), completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 14, 2015, based on inheritance due to the consultation and division regarding the instant land (hereinafter “instant inheritance registration”).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff concluded a title trust agreement with the deceased who was the fifth degree of 5th and the land of this case (hereinafter "the title trust agreement of this case") and completed the registration of this case on December 31, 2003. Since the title trust agreement of this case and the ownership transfer registration of this case are null and void pursuant to Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, the defendant, the heir of the deceased, is obligated to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer of this case and the cancellation of the registration of the inheritance of this case.
B. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant title trust agreement was concluded only with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and witness F’s testimony based on the overall purport of the pleadings, and the testimony of the witness F is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant title trust agreement was concluded.