Busan District Court Decision 2008Na12276 ( November 07, 2008)

Whether a seizure disposition on real estate held in title trust is legitimate

In the case of a trust of real estate under a name, the ownership is externally reverted to the trustee, and the nominal truster cannot claim the ownership against a third party on the ground of the trust, and thus, the seizure disposition on the real estate under title trust due to the delinquency of the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant is clear that it falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Supplementary District Court Decision 2008Na12276 ( November 07, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the attached real estate shall be revoked. On July 25, 1997, the Seoul District Court 97Kadan 11933; the Busan District Court No. 47549, Jul. 30, 1997; the registration of provisional attachment No. 13410-388, Apr. 30, 1998; the registration of provisional attachment No. 23912, May 1, 1998; the registration of provisional attachment No. 2360, Jun. 7, 1999 (1340-6203); the registration of the above provisional attachment No. 2403, Jun. 27, 20196; the registration of the above provisional attachment No. 3760, Mar. 26, 2016>

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendants. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Store, ○○○○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○○○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○○○ Financial Corporation, and ○○○ Mutual Savings Bank, are all unlawful, and thus, they are dismissed, respectively, and all claims against the defendant Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City Do, Busan Maritime Transport Daegu, and Korea are dismissed as it is without merit. The part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants is just as it is concluded,

[Supplementary District Court 2007Kadan9774, 2008.01]

1. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant ○○ Limited Company, ○ Insurance Company, ○○ Corporation, ○○ Corporation, and ○○ Bank is dismissed.

2. On January 15, 2006, Defendant High ○○ concluded the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the real estate stated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim against defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, and ○○ City ○○, respectively, is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant High ○○ is borne by Defendant High ○, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is borne by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the real estate mentioned in the order of paragraph (2) and attached Table 2, the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on July 30, 1997, and the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 30, 198.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 1975, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. However, as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate, each of the registrations of provisional seizure and the registration of seizure in the name of the remaining Defendants was completed (Provided, That the Defendant ○○ Limited Company (hereinafter “Defendant ○○”) succeeded to the status of the creditor of the said decision of provisional seizure by taking over the claim from ○○ Bank that merged the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd. with the ○○ Bank that

: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3-3, and the purport of u300 u300 u300 for the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant High ○○

The Plaintiff, a clan, purchased the instant real estate on October 3, 1975, and entrusted the title of the instant real estate to Defendant High○○○ at the time of the Plaintiff’s registration, and on January 15, 2006, the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant High○○○ on January 15, 2006 the intent to terminate the title trust was not in dispute between u300 and u300, so Defendant High○○ is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on January 15, 2006 with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ○○, ○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○ Corporation, ○○ Corporation, and ○ Bank

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff’s clan, and that the said Defendants sought cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure because they completed the registration of provisional seizure without any authority on the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Da○○ individual.

B. First of all, the provisional seizure registration by the decision of provisional seizure against the real estate in question is made only by the entrustment of the execution court in principle, and once the provisional seizure registration is made based on the decision of provisional seizure, even a creditor cannot remove the execution independently if the provisional seizure registration is made based on the decision of provisional seizure, and the provisional seizure registration is cancelled only by the revocation of pressure decision of the execution court or by the revocation of execution. Thus, even if the real owner of the real estate whose provisional seizure registration has been completed, even if he is the real owner of the real estate whose provisional seizure registration was completed, he shall file a lawsuit of objection against the creditor of provisional seizure and file an application for cancellation of execution with the execution court

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○, and Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that although the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the registration of seizure based on the tax claim against the defendant High ○○○ is unlawful since the above defendants did not have a title, so that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of seizure invalid based on the ownership

B. Determination

According to Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, where a title trust which registers a real right to real estate held by a clan in the name of a person other than the clan does not aim at evading any tax, evading any compulsory execution, or evading any legal restrictions, if the provisions of Articles 4 through 7, and 12 (1) and (2) of the same Act are excluded, and the same Act does not apply to the real estate held in title before the enforcement of the same Act, and the title trust agreement still remains effective even if the real name registration or the sale of the real estate held in title by the clan is not made within the grace period under Article 11 of the same Act. However, if the real estate is held in title trust, the title truster is externally attributed to the trustee, and therefore the title truster

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant ○○, ○○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○, ○○ Corporation, and ○ Bank is unlawful and dismissed. The claim against the defendant ○○○ is accepted as reasonable. The claim against the defendant ○○○ is dismissed as it is without merit.