The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant is the plaintiff's sonia and the plaintiff's sonia.

On February 19, 1974, the Plaintiff purchased and acquired the land listed in paragraph (1) of the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant land”) and thereafter constructed a building listed in paragraph (2) of the annexed Table (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground above the land, and completed the registration of initial ownership on December 31, 1979.

On December 28, 2010, the Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership based on donation to the Defendant on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant registration of transfer”). (hereinafter referred to as “this case’s registration of transfer”) did not dispute [based on recognition], entry of Gap’s Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 9, and assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff intended to contribute to the instant real estate after establishing the Scholarship Foundation, and registered title trust in the name of the Defendant, a Chok, only before establishing the Foundation.

Therefore, since the registration of transfer of this case is null and void because it is based on bilateral title trust, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner.

The registration of the transfer of this case cannot be deemed null and void, since the real estate of this case was donated to the defendant by the plaintiff and was not trusted in title.

Judgment

The registration of the relevant legal principles is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and a person who claims that he/she had registered by trusting another person shall be liable to prove the relevant title trust fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da215070 Decided June 19, 2017). Meanwhile, in a case where a parent brings a military asset to his own consciousness before his/her birth, the parents still exercise the right to manage and dispose of the relevant property under the person’s own cooperation or consent even after his/her birth.