(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.01.08 2014가단2965

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.01.08 2014가단2965

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is a clan consisting of descendants of the advisory services, who are 32 years of age for the mother clan. The defendants are the members of the plaintiff clan. A resolution was made to vest the land of 8,761 square meters (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") in the land of So-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, which was managed by the members of the plaintiff clan.

B. Meanwhile, although the real estate of this case was owned by the plaintiff clan, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of defendant A, but the defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case on September 9, 2009 for the reason of the donation made by the plaintiff clan on August 25, 2009, in order to avoid the demand for attribution of real estate according to the resolution of the plaintiff clan.

C. This is null and void as it is an anti-social legal act committed by Defendant A to evade the duty to transfer the ownership to the Plaintiff clan. As such, Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer completed in its future on the ground of donation, and Defendant A is obligated to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of the title trust with the Plaintiff clan, as well as the cancellation of the title trust with Defendant A.

2. Determination

A. In accordance with the title trust agreement with Defendant A, the Plaintiff clan filed the instant claim on the premise that he/she owns the ownership of the instant real estate in an internal manner pursuant to the title trust agreement with Defendant A, but no evidence exists to recognize that the agreement exists between the Plaintiff clan and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the existence of the title trust agreement is without merit without any need to further examine.

Rather, according to witness D and E's testimony, there was no title trust agreement itself between the plaintiff's clan, the clan and the defendant, and the defendant A was only the defendant's arbitrarily without any consultation with the plaintiff's clan.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나303391

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2006.12.6.선고 2006가단5047 판결

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.09.28 2016가단71567

-의정부지방법원 2017.02.09 2014가합54547

-대전지방법원 2018.11.01 2017나106846