beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to the Plaintiff, 688 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, Seoul Metropolitan Government:
A. Defendant B.
Reasons
1. The allegations by the parties and the description of the progress of the case between the Plaintiff and Defendant B were continuously changed from the first instance court to the appellate court, and the parties finally emphasized by this court. A. The following points are the content that the parties finally emphasized.
Plaintiff’s assertion
1) On January 23, 2008, the Plaintiff is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision from Defendant C on January 23, 2008 (hereinafter “land before subdivision”).
(2) On February 18, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to purchase KRW 443 square meters, G 2,651 square meters, H large 9 square meters, and KRW 33 square meters, I forest 33 square meters, and KRW 480 million, an unauthorized building located on the said land. 2) Thereafter, the Plaintiff entered into a separate contract with Defendant C with the buyer and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereafter. The said contract was merely a formal contract concluded between Defendant C and the seller, and Defendant C, who was the seller, recognized the Plaintiff as the buyer (the Defendant C did not have any separate contract with Defendant B). The purchase price was also collected from the Plaintiff.
3) However, around February 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from Defendant B to use for the purchase fund of the above land. In relation to the settlement, etc. of the above money, the Plaintiff further consultation was made on or around January 2009. The content was that Defendant B owned the land prior to the division, and that the remaining 688 square meters should be owned by the Plaintiff according to the original title trust relationship. Accordingly, the ownership transfer registration of Defendant B on the land prior to the division was invalidated in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and thus, Defendant C, the seller of the instant land, was restored the ownership, and the Plaintiff, the buyer, as the creditor, is the Plaintiff.