logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2019.11.21 2018가단70575
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s payment thereof on December 3, 2016.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate upon the Defendant’s recommendation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on December 2, 2016. However, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the trustee, which was made pursuant to the title trust agreement, should be cancelled as the cause becomes null and void. As such, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer under

B. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, the registration titleholder is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration as well as the third party, so the registration titleholder shall be presumed to have acquired ownership with respect to the previous owner. Therefore, the grounds for invalidation should be asserted in the grounds

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s transfer registration based on “sale on September 3, 2013” was made in the name of the Plaintiff on October 31, 2013, and the ownership transfer registration based on “sale on November 5, 2016” was made under the Defendant’s name on December 2, 2016. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone concluded a title trust agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate and accordingly, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had completed the registration of transfer under the Defendant’s name on December 2, 2016, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had completed the registration of transfer under the Defendant’s name.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the Defendant on November 5, 2016, in KRW 150,000,000, and the Plaintiff’s as to the instant real estate on December 2, 2016.

arrow