beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “within July 2004” of the first instance as “within July 2005.”
Although the plaintiff asserts that he had title trust with the land and building in Jung-gu, the plaintiff did not clearly state what he had the economic motive of title trust, such as avoiding debt collection by a third party, tax evasion, etc.
The registration of real estate is valid even though it does not reflect the process or form that led to the disclosure of the current state of true rights. As such, in acquiring real estate from the former owner, the person who registered the real estate lawfully acquired the real estate for another reason without following the grounds for registration stated in the register, and asserts that the form or process of the act of the ground for registration is somewhat different from that of the act of the former owner, and it cannot be said that the presumption of such registration has
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da42980, Feb. 27, 1996; 2008Da5059, Jun. 12, 2008). Therefore, even in such a case, the party asserting that the registration was completed without any cause is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidation.
As long as the registration of ownership transfer for the land and building in the name of the defendant has been completed due to sale, in principle, the defendant shall be presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate grounds for registration, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant is null and void as a title trust shall be proved by the plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the presumption of registration is immediately broken, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Rather, it is true.