logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.07.14 2015가단37084
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from C on December 23, 1992 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the mother, the mother.

However, the registration of the name of the defendant is null and void because it violates the law on the registration of the name of the actual right holder.

Therefore, the Defendant, instead of cancelling the registration in the name of the Defendant, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name, to the Plaintiff, the actual right holder.

2. A claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is to seek the restoration of the true title based on ownership instead of seeking the cancellation against the present title holder who was registered in his own name or acquired ownership by law.

Therefore, if a person who did not have the ownership registration in his own future and who did not acquire the ownership under the law can file a claim for the cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder on behalf of the owner, he cannot file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the real name.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2807, Jan. 27, 2011). Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is evident that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name or acquired ownership by law.

Therefore, even if the registration of the Defendant’s name is null and void because it violates the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

arrow