logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.03 2014누64638
압류해제거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

(1) Subsequent to the fourth page 10, “The registration of preservation of ownership of the plaintiff who completed the above shall be limited to the registration pursuant to the title trust agreement, and the defendant was well aware of this fact by notifying the defendant of such fact.”

(2) On the 4th page 10, the term “foreign company” shall be changed to the Plaintiff.

(3) On the 5th page, the 10th page must be added to the “(the plaintiff was in the first instance and the buyer did not acquire the ownership of the commercial building of this case as a real right)”.

(4) The interval between pages 5, 11 through 6, shall be as follows:

“Inasmuch as multiple buyers, as above, did not acquire ownership as a real right to the instant commercial building, it is obvious that the actual owner and the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding a title trust agreement under the premise that the title holder of the registration of ownership preservation is different from that of the title holder is without merit.

Unlike this, it is deemed that the buyer acquired the instant commercial building at the original time and completed only the registration of preservation of ownership in the future of the plaintiff according to the title trust agreement.

Even in light of the following legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

According to Article 4(1) and the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, a title trust agreement and a change in real rights to real estate made by registration following the title trust agreement

However, according to Article 4 (3) of the same Act, the invalidity cannot be set up against a third party, and the "third party" in this context is not a party to a title trust agreement and a general successor.

arrow