The case rejecting all the principal claim and counterclaim by the plaintiff and the defendant on the real estate in this case registered under the name of the defendant and possessed by the plaintiff

According to evidence, it can be recognized that the registration of transfer of ownership made in the name of the defendant from the plaintiff on the real estate in this case is for the security of claims. Thus, regardless of the extinguishment of the above security obligation, the plaintiff's principal claim on the sole ground of the termination of title trust and the defendant's counterclaim on the sole ground of ownership due to the payment in substitutes is all dismissed.

Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court (79Gahap6 (Main Office), 707 (Counterclaim)

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant (Counterclaim) regarding the principal lawsuit shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

All the costs of the lawsuit in the first and second instances relating to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be borne by one half of each of the original and the defendant (the counterclaim defendant, the plaintiff).

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) will serve the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form list by serving this case as a main gushe, thereby implementing the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to termination of trust.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall specify to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the real estate stated in the attached Table.

The judgment and a declaration of provisional execution that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

On October 27, 1973, with respect to the real estate of this case stated in the attached list, the ownership transfer registration is made from the plaintiff (the counter defendant, the plaintiff from the next day to the next day) to the defendant (the plaintiff only) on the ground of sale on the 20th day of the previous month, and the fact that the plaintiff occupies is no dispute.

As the cause of the claim, the plaintiff owned the real estate in this case. On October 1973, 200, the plaintiff transferred the ownership to the defendant before 27th of that month for the purpose of preventing the creditor's compulsory execution by default on checks issued by the plaintiff. However, the defendant is obligated to execute the procedure for ownership transfer registration by serving this case so that the plaintiff is liable to execute the procedure for ownership transfer registration. The defendant asserts that the above transfer registration is not a security for 5,30,00 won of bonds as of October 27, 1973 and was received by payment in kind, but it is difficult for the plaintiff to do so. Thus, the plaintiff has a duty to explain to the defendant as to the non-party 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 1 to 5-1 to 9, Gap witness evidence No. 5-1 to 6, Gap evidence No. 7, No. 4 to 5-2, defendant evidence No. 7, and all of the counter-party 1 to 4 evidence No.

Thus, regardless of the extinguishment of the above secured obligation, the plaintiff's principal claim which only caused the title trust termination and the execution of the above security right, and all the defendant's counterclaim claims which only caused the ownership due to payment in substitutes are dismissed unfairly. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the principal claim is unfair and the part concerning the counterclaim is justified.

Therefore, it is decided in accordance with Articles 386, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines