(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2016가단251290

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.20 2016가단251290

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased D (the deceased on September 2016, hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Defendant B is the mother of the deceased, and there is no child between the Plaintiff and the deceased.

B. On November 17, 2009, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Defendant C, based on the sale on September 30, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid since the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Defendant C and entrusted the registration title to Defendant B, and thus, the transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name is invalidated.

Therefore, Defendant B, the title trustee, is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate to Defendant C, the seller, and Defendant C, the buyer, is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the sale contract of the instant real estate.

Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate against Defendant C, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of ownership transfer registration by subrogation of Defendant C, and sought implementation of ownership transfer registration procedure against Defendant C.

B. At the time of the sales contract for Defendant B’s real estate, the actual purchaser was not the Plaintiff, but the deceased, and the deceased, after title trust for the instant real estate with Defendant B, agreed that the ownership of the instant real estate should be reverted to Defendant B on a conclusive basis, as it repaid the obligation to return the lease deposit or made investments in other real estate with Defendant B’s assistance.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's title trust is recognized, the defendant C, the seller, did not know about the title trust agreement.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.12.16 2015가단33747

-인천지방법원 2016.12.13 2016나57338

-창원지방법원거창지원 2015.11.24 2015가단10115

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.06.28 2017가단2147

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.06 2020가단5006651