logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.08 2017가단222140
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff with the claim for reimbursement against B filed a payment order with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008 tea10657, and issued a payment order with the above court on November 10, 2008, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,384,475 and delay damages for KRW 48,586,065 among them,” and the above payment order was finalized on December 4, 2008.

B. The defendant is a legal disposition in B, and after purchasing the real estate in this case on November 15, 2001 and completing the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 2001, it owned the above real estate up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a real estate trusted to the Defendant by completing the registration under the name of the Defendant, the wife, after having actually purchased the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of B, shall terminate a title trust agreement with the Defendant on behalf of B, who is insolvent, and seek the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration.

B. (1) Under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired in the name of one spouse in the marriage shall be presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, and in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse shall bear the price for the real estate in question and prove that the real estate was acquired in order to own it substantially.

At this time, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust with respect to the pertinent real estate by changing the presumption of an unconditional property and not by considering all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse has paid the price for the real possession of the pertinent real estate individually and specifically, and in particular, by other evidence.

arrow