logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단5024533
소유권이전등기말소등
Text

1. As to Defendant B’s shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet

Defendant B is against Defendant C.

Reasons

1. The facts following the facts of recognition may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry of the plaintiff and the defendants, or Gap 1 to 9 evidence (including each number).

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff decided to purchase D Apartments, 905 Dong 806 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from Defendant C for KRW 308,00,000 in price, and to bear all of the price.

B. However, with respect to the share of the half of the apartment of this case, the title trust (hereinafter, the title trust of this case) is to be made to Defendant B, who is his father, and the purchaser was written in the sales contract, which is the cause for registration, to be submitted to the registry.

C. Since then, as to the apartment of this case, the Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's registration office was completed on July 22, 2016 as to the ownership transfer registration for one-half shares in the name of Defendant B and the Plaintiff, respectively.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, it is reasonable to view that the sales contract for the instant apartment on June 23, 2016, as a party to the contract, was made by the Plaintiff as a party to the contract, and the Plaintiff was to purchase the entire apartment from Defendant C, and that the registration name was to be made in the future for the Defendant B, and that there was an intent to have the legal effect under the sales contract reverted to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the title trust agreement for one-half portion of the instant apartment constitutes a registered title trust with three parties

Therefore, both the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the sales contract concluded between the Defendants as to the share of one half of the apartment of this case are null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Thus, the Plaintiff, the actual purchaser, has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale against the Defendant C, and Defendant C has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer cancellation against the

arrow