2015dan6766 Cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership

A

Law Firm Song-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Seo-dae, Attorney Seo-dae et al.

B

Law Office of Pohang (Law Office)

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

August 11, 2016

September 8, 2016

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim regarding the extension report stated in the separate sheet shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Daegu District Court No. 14638, Feb. 27, 2015, with respect to the attached appraisal L part 407m with respect to the attached land among the land size of 672m2 in the Gu-U.S. C forest land in Gu-si.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The defendant implements the procedure for the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter in this case) entered in the order completed with respect to the forest land entered in the order (hereinafter in this case) and the procedure for the cancellation of the report of extension (hereinafter in this case, the extension registration) entered in the annexed sheet is conducted.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) newly built a farmer’s housing (a general wood structure, a single wood structure, and a single roof, a single-story single-story single-story single-story single-story single-story single-story house) on a 650 square meters wide; (b) on September 4, 2013, the Defendant acquired the general housing on the ground attached to the letter of the said D site (a general wood structure and a single-story multi-story single-story single-story house) by transfer on the 1st 89.6 square meters on the ground attached to the letter of the said D site.

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of the instant forest land owned by the Plaintiff on the north side of the said two sites, based on the purchase and sale on the same day (transaction price of KRW 17 million) to the Defendant, and filed a report on the instant extension with the owner as the Defendant and with the land as one parcel (the instant forest land) outside the Defendant’s E site (the instant forest land), and received the repair of the old and old market.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff imposed an amount equivalent to 6.750,000 won for license tax such as construction, development, conversion of a mountainous district, etc., national housing bond purchase, performance guarantee insurance, expenses for creation of forest resources, expenses for restoration of mountainous district, etc., and completed the civil engineering work with regard to the forest of this case by spending KRW 11 million for civil engineering design costs and KRW 15 million for civil engineering construction costs, and completed the civil engineering work with regard to the forest of this case.

D. With the boundary of the above stone shed, part 407 square meters in the attached appraisal map of the Dong (A. 123 square meters) is connected to the Plaintiff’s above D site, and the part 1 of the above drawing indication of the land is connected to the Defendant’s above E site (A. 80 square meters). Construction works are in progress even during the basic construction phase for the extension of the above part (A. 80 square meters).

E. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 17 million, which is the transaction value on the above registry, to the Plaintiff. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 17 million with the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal to receive payment under this Court No. 723, Sept. 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9, 11, 13, witness F's testimony, results of surveying and appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Part on the request for cancellation registration

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the event that a farmer's house was newly constructed by converting the forest land into the land site, the building on this building cannot be extended unless five years have elapsed. In order to extend the building, a lot of time is required for changing the forest land into the general land, and the amount of the exclusive use charges and statutory charges reduced or exempted shall be refunded, and at least six meters shall be paid to the G forest owned by the plaintiff and the part adjacent to the forest of this case, which was developed by the plaintiff, at the request of the neighboring defendant who was the only neighbor living in a remote area, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership registration of the forest of this case to the defendant and extend the building owned by the plaintiff upon receiving a report of extension in the name of the defendant who had owned the general house, and even after completing the registration of the ownership transfer of this case, the defendant, who had completed the civil engineering work on the forest of this case, raised ownership more than the purchase price that the plaintiff had entered in the form, as seen above, and the registration of this case shall be cancelled because it was completed by a title trust agreement or a false agreement.

B. Determination

원피고 쌍방의 이 사건 도중의 진술내용(원고 : 2015. 2. 27.자 부동산매매계약서 작성당시 이 사건 토지 중 E 뒷부분을 원고가 피고에게 팔기로 한 것은 맞지만 금액에 관하여 합의가 되지도 않았고 90평으로 면적이 확정된 것도 아니었다. 2015. 4.경 식당에서 만나 원고가 평당 50만원을 제의했더니 피고는 평당 30만원을 제의했다. 피고 : 식당에서 만난 시점은 2015. 5~6.경인 것 같고 당시 원고는 피고가 제의한 30만원을 오케이 했다가 3일쯤 뒤에 다시 원고의 처 이야기를 꺼내면서 다른 토지 매수인들이 반발할 우려가 있다는 등의 이유로 곤란하다고 하였다. 원고 : 그때 합의가 되었다면 왜 피고는 그때 평당 30만원을 입금하지 않았는지 알 수 없다. 2015. 9. 9.경 피고가 원고에게 입금했으니 통장을 확인해보라고 하기에 확인해보니 등기의 방편상 임의로 기재한 액수를 입금해놓았다. 피고 : 당시 원고는 피고에게 돈은 천천히 주면 된다고 하였고 그렇게 하여 죽 오다가 2015. 추석무렵에 원고가 피고에게 형님 평당 80만원에 내놓았습니다 라고 하기에 피고가 그렇게 돈을 입금한 것이다.), 원고의 의뢰로 이 사건 임야에 토목공사를 한 증인 F의 증언 내용(이 사건 임야는 원고가 개발 중인 G 임야의 진입로로 사용할 수 없고, 원고 집이나 피고 집, 그 두 집만이 이용가능한 땅이다. 위 토목공사 당시 증인이 피고의 처에게 "사모님 이 땅 잘 샀습니다. 4용지에 그림을 그려가지고 장독대, 펜스, 화단을 어떻게 꾸밀 것인지 생각해 두시는 것이 좋겠습니다."라고 말한 적이 있다), 위 토목공사의 내용 및 비용에 관한 원고의 주장내용(평탄 작업 및 석축작업 등 합계 1,500만원)과 공사시기에 관한 위 F의 진술내용(증언 : 2015. 4.6. 중순까지 토목공사하고 1,500만원 정도 받았다. 진술서 : 2015. 5. 31.경 공사 착수하여 2015. 6. 30.경 완성하고 1,500만원을 받았다), 원고가 이 사건 임야 전체에 대하여 피고 앞으로 이 사건 소유권이전등기를 마친 다음 이 사건 임야 전체와 피고의 대지를 대지위치로 하고 피고를 건축주로 하는 이 사건 증축신고를 하여 구미시장으로부터 수리를 받은 후 이에 기하여 이 사건 임야 전체에 대하여 평탄작업을 마치고 원고 소유의 대지 뒤편과 피고 소유의 대지 뒤편의 경계 부분에 석축을 쌓고 원고 소유의 대지 뒤편에 증축할 건물의 기초공사를 실시한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 소유권이전등기 당시 원고는 피고에게 이 사건 임야 중 피고 소유의 위 E 대지에 접하는 부분을 매도하되 구체적인 면적은 위 경계부분에 석축공사를 마침으로써 확정하고 구체적인 대금은 피고가 원고의 증축을 위하여 건축주 명의를 대여하는 등 편의를 제공한 점을 감안하여 시세보다 저렴하게 하되 향후 면적이 확정된 시점에 합의하여 정하기로 하며, 소유권이전등기는 위 증축신고의 대지위치와 맞추기 위하여 실제로 증축을 할 원고 소유의 위 D 대지에 접하는 부분까지 포함하여 마치기로 합의하였다.고 봄이 타당하다. 피고가 일방적으로 등기부상의 거래가액을 입금한 것은 도리어 위 합의의 취지에 반하여 평당 80만원에 내놓았다는 원고의 말 때문이었던 것으로 보이는바, 그 이전에 위 석축공사가 완료되어 위 도면 표시 ㄱ 부분으로 구체적인 면적이 확정된 이상 둘 사이에 남은 것은 매매대금을 확정하는 일뿐인데, 위 합의에 기하여 이점에 관하여 성실히 협상을 하여야 할 의무가 있는 원고가 피고의 협상요구에 불응한다고 하여 계약이 불성립으로 귀착된다거나 성립된 계약이 무효화한다고 볼 수는 없고, 이와 같은 경우에는 합의의 내용을 둘러싼 제반사정을 종합하여 상당하다고 볼 수 있는 액수로 매매대금이 확정된다고 보아야 할 것이다. 앞서 본 원피고의 가격절충내 용(평당 30만원[2,400만원] ~ 50만원[4,000만원), 이 사건 임야 중 ㄱ 부분에 대한 시가감정결과 [토목공사가 완성된 택지후보지 형태의 잡종지 상태로 평가할 경우(가격 시점 2016. 7. 13.) 거래사례비교법에 의하면 28,090,000원(㎡당 106,000원), 공시지가기 준법에 의하면 26,235,000원(㎡당 99,000원), 피고는 위 합의에 기하여 명의신탁으로 인한 형사처벌 등의 불이익을 각오하고 ㄴ 부분에 관하여서까지 소유권이전등기를 넘겨받고 원고의 편의를 위하여 자신의 위E 대지를 함께 대지위치로 하는 이 사건 증축신고에 관하여 건축주 명의를 대여하는 등 시세보다 저렴하게 매수하기 위해 원고에게 약속한 행위는 전부 이행한 점, 한편 원고는 이 사건 소 제기를 통하여 불법적 편익을 포기하기로 하였고 위 ㄱ 부분에도 평탄작업 등 상당한 비용과 노력을 투입한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 모두 종합하여 보면, 그 액수는 3,000만원 정도라고 봄이 상당하다. 결국 이 사건 소유권이전등기 중 ㄱ 부분에 관한 것은 위와 같이 확정된 매매계약에 터잡은 것이므로 원고는 이 부분에 대하여는 말소등기절차의 이행을 구할 수 없고, ㄴ 부분에 관한 것은 탈법행위를 목적으로 한 명의신탁약정에 기한 것이므로 피고는 원고에게 그 말소등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다.

3. Part demanding the extension report;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant extension report made in the name of the Defendant was accepted on the premise that the instant forest, which is the land of the Defendant, is owned by the Defendant, and the registration of ownership in the Defendant’s name with respect to the instant forest should be cancelled. As such, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant forest, has the right to either implement the procedure for cancelling the instant extension report, which failed to meet the repair requirements against the Defendant, or to request the Defendant

B. Determination

First of all, the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of the extension report is the same that the Defendant would express his/her consent to the revocation of the extension report, and thus, the purport of the claim(b) and (c) is to combine the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of the extension report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1228, Apr. 2, 2009). If the Defendant’s request for cancellation of the extension report directly with the government office, it is not necessary to conclude that the purpose of the extension report can be achieved without any separate execution, even if it is submitted to the government office upon the receipt of judgment in lieu of such Defendant’s expression of intent, even if there is no separate execution. The old Viewers reply that the Plaintiff could not cancel the report without the consent of the Defendant, but it is not worth considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of the extension report of this case and the Defendant’s consent, which would hinder or interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership rights to the forest of this case. This is because, before the legal effect of the extension report, it would normally hinder the Defendant’s exercise of ownership rights.

In the event that the Plaintiff’s application for a new construction act of the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant forest by removing all the parts of the instant extension report, restoring to its original state, and restoring the registration of ownership of the instant forest, as agreed upon by the previous Si and US, there is no ground to deem such application to be rejected on the ground of the existence of the instant extension report. This is not the forest of this case, but the building that might interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership due to the instant extension report is to be completed by the extension of the Plaintiff. In light of the contents of the instant extension report, the building that the Plaintiff’s basic construction works progress is not the building that wides or vertically wides the existing agricultural house or vertical height, but it appears that it would be independent building for its structural use. In this case, the ownership registration will be preserved in the name of the Defendant, which is the owner of the instant building based on the building register, in the name of the owner of the instant building (see the Supreme Court Decision 208Hun-Ga, a building owner’s title transfer to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the claim is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim related to the extension report shall be dismissed, and those within the above recognition scope among the claims for cancellation registration shall be accepted for the reasons, and the remainder shall be dismissed for the reason that it is

Constitution of judges

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.