beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 1, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. and the Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C Apartment-gu 512 Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On February 12, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. and received the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant registration”).
B. On December 29, 201, Appellant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment on the ground of sale to D, a de facto spouse, the Plaintiff’s de facto marital spouse.
C. On February 29, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 22,200,000 on the Plaintiff, a title truster, on the ground that the instant registration was completed in violation of Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including evidence attached with a serial number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On July 1, 1996, when the grace period was expired due to the Plaintiff’s failure to make the actual name registration within the grace period under Article 11(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased was terminated. Accordingly, the instant disposition made five years after the exclusion period for imposition was unlawful. (2) If the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the deceased for return of the instant apartment even after the grace period under Article 11(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act has expired, even if the grace period has expired, the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased was not terminated. Thus, the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment was expired on July 1, 2006, when ten years have elapsed since the grace period expired from July 1, 1996.