beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, and thus, citing the summary, including the summary, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the 9th judgment of the first instance, the "O of the witness" in the 11th judgment shall be regarded as "O of the first instance court witness."
On the 11th page of the judgment of the first instance, the "Witness L" in the 14th page shall be regarded as "the L of the first instance court witness".
From 12th of the first instance judgment, the 16th to 14th of the 12th of the 14th instance judgment are as follows.
【2) First, as alleged by the Plaintiff, whether there was a three-party title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and C and the Defendant regarding each of the instant real estate, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s statement in Gap evidence No. 6 (as a result of the title trust agreement and the signature appraisal by the appraiser AB of the trial party appraiser AB, it is recognized that the entire document is authentic, since the seal affixed to the Defendant’s name was affixed by the seal of the Defendant under the above title trust agreement, it is recognized that the entire document was trusted out to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the above title trust agreement was concluded between C and the Defendant at the time of the preparation of the second agreement and the transfer registration of ownership of 1/5 of each of the instant real estate at the time of the establishment of the second agreement and the transfer registration of ownership of 1/5 of each of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff did not know that there was no dispute between C and the Defendant as to the share in the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part was without merit.