(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.23 2017노1846 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2017.11.23 2017노1846

부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was not the de facto owner of the instant building, the lower court: (a) registered the preservation of ownership in the name of E, a trustee, while the Defendant owned the instant building in a de facto name.

As such, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant was living in an area where the said area was designated as an area subject to speculation restriction on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant did not pay a separate purchase price on condition that deposit and loan are taken over on behalf of his mother, and purchased Asan City F by bearing only registration expenses; and (b) at

Upon full view of the following facts: (a) the registration was completed in the name of E; (b) the sales of the instant building site and the remaining amount of KRW 7,00-80,000 to KRW 700,000,000,000 and the construction cost, registration cost, etc. were paid; (c) the building of this case was constructed with the Defendant’s funds; and (d) the registration for preservation of E ownership was completed; (c) at the time, E appears to have no particular funds; (d) the Defendant entered into a lease contract with tenants under the name of E and managed the instant building by receiving rent; and (e) E was not involved in the management of the instant building; and (e) the Defendant completed the registration for preservation of ownership under the name of E as the actual owner of the instant building.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in view of the circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment, namely, ① the Defendant was in the name of the mother of the instant building due to the high number of property in the future at the prosecution.

The statement "," and 2. The record of telephone communications with E.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.06.02 2016고단2563

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.05.18 2016고단3556

-대전지방법원 2016.09.29 2016노963

-서울고등법원 2017.03.29 2016노1341

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.04.29 2015고합279