logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.08.10 2016나72334
명의신탁해지를 원인으로한소유권이전등기
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case in this case is that the court shall dismiss "the date of July 16, 2010" as "the date of May 1, 2010" and the judgment of the court of first instance among the judgments of the court of first instance.

4.(c)

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the following modifications, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the purport of the entire arguments and the results of the examination of the witness I of the trial, part of the party concerned against Defendant C in the trial room, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs and Defendant C divided the real estate before the instant partition into each of the instant real estate on May 1, 2010 and agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, and the F forest land 1,413 square meters under the Plaintiff’s name, and the F forest 1,413 square meters under the Plaintiff’s name.

However, as seen earlier, the title trust agreement concluded between the Plaintiffs and Defendant C is null and void pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Under the premise that the title trust agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant C is valid, the instant split agreement with the purport of dividing the instant real estate purchased under the name of Defendant C, a trustee, into each of the instant real estate and completing the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiffs, a truster, is also null and void.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow