logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나313334
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the alteration or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

The following matters shall be added to the third first instance judgment:

According to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, where a title truster and a title trustee entered into a contract title trust agreement, and the title trustee entered into such contract with the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trustee was a party to the contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the relevant real estate in accordance with such contract, the title trustee will acquire full ownership of the relevant real estate notwithstanding the invalidity of the title trust agreement between the title truster and the title trustee. However, the title trustee is merely liable for the return of unjust enrichment to the title truster. In such cases, where the contract title trust agreement was entered into after the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the title truster could not acquire ownership of the relevant real estate from the beginning. Therefore, the damage suffered by the title truster due to the invalidation of the said contract title trust agreement is the purchase fund provided to the title trustee, not the relevant real estate itself, and therefore, the title trustee was unjust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90432, Oct. 14).

The plaintiff was granted a loan that accounts for a significant portion of the purchase fund of the apartment of this case with D's credit, and it was confirmed that the actual owner of the apartment of this case was D. Thus, the defendant's claim amount against D.

arrow