logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.06.20 2011나73320
소유권말소등기 등
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 1988, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D 330.6 square meters and the F F 330.6 square meters owned by Nonparty E, which were owned by Defendant C, were registered under each Defendant B’s name. On November 1, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the instant land, the real estate listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly constructed, and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on January 6, 1996 in the name of Defendant B.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land was purchased from Defendant C and Nonparty E on April 7, 198, and the registration title was entrusted to Defendant B, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name is null and void pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. As such, the Plaintiff sought registration of transfer of ownership based on the said sale to Defendant C, and sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in subrogation of Defendant C, in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer of ownership against Defendant C. Since the instant building was constructed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff acquired it at the time, and was null and void pursuant to the title trust agreement with Defendant B, the registration of transfer of ownership is sought to recover the true title of registration. Meanwhile, even if Defendant B was not the owner of the instant building as above, the Plaintiff obtained profits from the lessee without any legal cause, and thus, was entitled to return unjust enrichment to Defendant B and Defendant B’s land as well as the instant building.

arrow