logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가단67108
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for reimbursement amounting to Seoul District Court Decision 2000Da44605, which rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 21,058,458 won and 17,78,798 won among them, 19% interest rate of 19% per annum from August 23, 1999 to the date of full payment.”

B. On December 26, 2006, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) under No. 23288 of the receipt on December 27, 2006, on the grounds of the sale and purchase of shares of 1/2 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) among the respective real estates listed in the separate sheet from B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 3's evidence 1 to 6, Eul 1 and 2's evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded a title trust agreement with the Defendant to evade compulsory execution despite the Plaintiff’s liability for reimbursement, and completed each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant.

However, even if it is not so, the sales contract between B and the defendant on each of the instant real estate constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy for the evasion of compulsory execution.

Therefore, each transfer registration of ownership in this case is invalid registration, and the plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership in this case by subrogation of B.

B. As Defendant B’s leakage, the Defendant leased KRW 22 million in cash or B’s son, or his spouse’s account in the name of the spouse, due to the failure of Defendant B’s business and the economic difficulties, and received each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer due to payment in kind.

3. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that each of the instant registration of ownership transfer was caused by a title trust agreement or a false representation of agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.