beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as to the defendant's argument at the trial of the court of first instance 3-B of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Except for addition to the following parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of
【Supplementary Judgment】
C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the registration consistent with the substantive relations is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relations, since C, as the Plaintiff’s husband, made joint investment with the Plaintiff, purchased the instant real estate, and entrusted the Plaintiff with the title of 1/2 of the instant real estate, and thus, C’s share of the instant real estate out of the
The real estate acquired in the name of the husband or wife during the marriage is presumed to be his or her unique property, and each husband or wife purchased the real estate by sharing a part of the purchase price.
The presumption is reversed and its real estate can be recognized as co-ownership by the husband and wife only when the substantive grounds, such as the husband and wife's purchase of the real estate by bearing a joint and several liability, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1337, Sept. 9, 1986). The real estate acquired by the plaintiff in his/her name during marriage with C is presumed to be the plaintiff's unique property. The real estate of this case, which was acquired in his/her name during the marriage with C, is presumed to be the plaintiff's unique property, and it is not sufficient to recognize that C has been entrusted with the title of 1/2 of the real estate of this case after it acquired the real estate of
Therefore, it is without any need to examine the Defendant’s above assertion on the premise that C, as the owner of the 1/2 share of the instant real estate, entrusted the title to the Plaintiff.