logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.03 2015가단5088420
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If the facts of recognition show the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a purchase fund as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") around 1990 and ordered the defendant to enter into a sales contract with the non-party C, the former owner of the real estate of this case, on April 2, 1990. Accordingly, the real estate of this case was registered for ownership transfer under the defendant's name on December 30, 1993, but the plaintiff exercised the real right pursuant to the title trust agreement between the above parties. Meanwhile, it can be recognized that C, the seller, was unaware of the existence of the above title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no counter-

2. Determination

A. The agreement on title trust of real estate with respect to the primary claim is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, which was enacted on March 30, 1995 and enforced on July 1, 1995. Even if the agreement on title trust prior to the enforcement of the above Act, if the agreement on title trust was not made within the grace period under Article 11 of the said Act, it shall also be null and void pursuant to Article 12(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the agreement on title trust with respect to the real estate between the plaintiff and the defendant was null

I would like to say.

Therefore, under the premise that the title trust agreement on the instant real estate between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid, the plaintiff's primary claim seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of such termination is without merit.

B. According to the provisions of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the title truster and the title trustee entered into a title trust agreement and accordingly, entered into a sales contract on real estate with the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trust agreement was a party to the title trustee, and based on the said sales contract.

arrow