beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 21, 1958, the instant land C and D and the instant land and the instant land of 2,033 square meters (hereinafter “I land”) had been completed on January 21, 1958 by the registration of ownership preservation in the future of V, W, F, and X on the grounds of registration. On January 26, 1988, the co-ownership of X out of each of the instant land was completed on January 26, 198 to the head-nam G, and V’s co-ownership was completed on the grounds of inheritance due to each of the co-ownership of property due to each of the co-ownership division to the head-Nam, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on May 24, 1990 by public land acquisition and transferred in the name of Gyeonggi-do on April 12, 206.
B. After that, with respect to the instant land, the net G, H, F, and the Defendant sold the said real estate to the Z on February 6, 2012, and AA in KRW 1.23 million, but the sales contract was concluded to pay the remainder of KRW 1.17 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 1.7 million on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On April 6, 2012, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Z and AA.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 3, 4, 22, 29, Gap evidence No. 52-1, and Gap evidence No. 72, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is a naturally blood group that is a natural blood group that is composed of L 45 years of age E, and each of the lands of this case C, D, and I are under title trust with shares of 1/4 of net G, F, H, and the defendant, each of which is its possession. The plaintiff sold the land of this case to Z and AA on December 6, 2012, and the defendant did not return it even after receiving KRW 287,50,000 as part of the above sale price, and the plaintiff does not return it. The plaintiff terminated the title trust contract with the defendant by delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case (2013Gahap123). The defendant terminated the title trust contract with the defendant. The defendant is each of the land of this case C and D.