Whether a seizure disposition on real estate held in title trust is legitimate

In the case of a trust of real estate under a name, the ownership is externally reverted to the trustee, and the nominal truster cannot claim the ownership against a third party on the ground of the trust, and thus, the seizure disposition on the real estate under title trust due to the delinquency of the

1. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant ○○ Limited Company, ○ Insurance Company, ○○ Corporation, ○○ Corporation, and ○○ Bank is dismissed.

2. On January 15, 2006, Defendant High ○○ concluded the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the real estate stated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim against defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, and ○○ City ○○, respectively, is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant High ○○ is borne by Defendant High ○, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is borne by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the real estate mentioned in the order of paragraph (2) and attached Table 2, the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on July 30, 1997, and the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 30, 198.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 1975, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. However, as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate, each of the registrations of provisional seizure and the registration of seizure in the name of the remaining Defendants was completed (Provided, That the Defendant ○○ Limited Company (hereinafter “Defendant ○○”) succeeded to the status of the creditor of the said decision of provisional seizure by taking over the claim from ○○ Bank that merged the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd. with the ○○ Bank that

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant High ○○

The Plaintiff, which is a clan, purchased the instant real estate on October 3, 1975, and entrusted the title of the instant real estate to Defendant senior ○○○ at the time of the Plaintiff’s registration, and on January 15, 2006, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the title trust to Defendant senior ○○○ on January 15, 2006, on the grounds that there is no dispute between the above parties, Defendant senior ○○ is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on January 15, 2006 with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ○○, ○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○ Corporation, ○○ Corporation, and ○ Bank

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff’s clan, and that the said Defendants sought cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure because they completed the registration of provisional seizure without any authority on the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Da○○ individual.

B. First of all, the provisional seizure registration by the decision of provisional seizure against the real estate in question is made only by the entrustment of the execution court in principle, and once the provisional seizure registration is made based on the decision of provisional seizure, even a creditor cannot remove the execution independently if the provisional seizure registration is made based on the decision of provisional seizure, and the provisional seizure registration is cancelled only by the revocation of pressure decision of the execution court or by the revocation of execution. Thus, even if the real owner of the real estate whose provisional seizure registration has been completed, even if he is the real owner of the real estate whose provisional seizure registration was completed, he shall file a lawsuit of objection against the creditor of provisional seizure and file an application for cancellation of execution with the execution court

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○, and Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that although the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the registration of seizure based on the tax claim against the defendant High ○○○ is unlawful since the above defendants did not have a title, so that the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of seizure invalid based on the ownership

B. Determination

According to Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, where a title trust which registers a real right to real estate held by a clan in the name of a person other than the clan does not aim at evading any tax, evading any compulsory execution, or evading any legal restrictions, if the provisions of Articles 4 through 7, and 12 (1) and (2) of the same Act are excluded, and the same Act does not apply to the real estate held in title before the enforcement of the same Act, and the title trust agreement still remains effective even if the real name registration or the sale of the real estate held in title by the clan is not made within the grace period under Article 11 of the same Act. However, if the real estate is held in title trust, the title truster is externally attributed to the trustee, and therefore the title truster

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant ○○, ○○ Insurance Co., Ltd., ○○○, ○○ Corporation, and ○ Bank is unlawful and dismissed. The claim against the defendant ○○○ is accepted as reasonable. The claim against the defendant ○○○ is dismissed as it is without merit.