beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Nos. 1 and 3" of the 4th 5th 5 and 7th 13th 13th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 1 and 3th eth eth 13th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e
(A) The testimony of Eul, which was additionally submitted by the defendant at the trial, is insufficient to reverse the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court only with the testimony of the witness M at the trial. 2. Additional decision
A. On the premise that the instant title trust agreement is a contract title trust, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription, as long as the instant lawsuit was filed on September 12, 2013 after ten years from the date of acquisition of the Defendant’s ownership (the grace period stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name has expired).
B. In the judgment, the right to the expiration of the statute of limitations is naturally extinguished, but the right cannot be judged against the will of the person who receives the benefit of the statute of limitations in the lawsuit, and the person who receives the benefit of the statute of limitations refers to the person who has the right to the right to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The fact that the title trust agreement in this case constitutes "three-party registered title trust" is as stated above, and the plaintiffs seek the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, which is the invalidation of the cause against the defendant, by subrogation of the seller F and the first instance co-defendant D and E, as the purchaser, in this case, the defendant is not a person who receives the benefit of prescription, and thus the defendant is not a person who receives the benefit of the statute of limitations.