logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.22 2015나22549
구상금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The apartment of this case where the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name A is owned by A according to the presumption of registration.

A around October 18, 2007, the Defendant’s husband D did not title trust the apartment of this case to A.

(B) On September 6, 2012, A sold the instant apartment to the Defendant, which is the only property under a debt excess status.

After that, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring bank on the apartment of this case was cancelled.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on September 6, 2012 between A and the Defendant regarding the instant apartment is revoked within the scope of KRW 29,032,50,50, which is the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount, out of the market value of the apartment of this case less the maximum debt amount of the said right to collateral security. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 29,032,505 per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

(2) On December 30, 1992, D, the Defendant’s husband and the omission of A, who asserted, acquired the instant apartment on December 30, 1992, and held a title trust to A on October 18, 207.

D on September 6, 2012, the above title trust was terminated and the apartment of this case was found in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, the apartment of this case is not a property A's responsible, but a sales contract between A and the defendant on September 6, 2012 is not a fraudulent act.

B. Whether the apartment building of this case is A’s responsible property (1) If the debtor completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the real estate in accordance with the title trust agreement, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applicable, and the above registration in the name of the debtor is null and void. Therefore, the above

arrow