logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가합107139
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2005, with respect to the apartment of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of the “sale on May 31, 2002” from the International Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd.”) to the Defendant.

B. On July 22, 2014, with respect to B, the Plaintiff, the husband of the Defendant, KRW 1,522,547,605, and KRW 1,522,547,605, based on the judgment finalized on July 22, 2014, and KRW 2

(A) contain each entry of Gap 1, 6, and Eul 2, with no dispute (if any, with a serial number).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the apartment house of this case is in title trust of the whole or at least 1/2 shares to the defendant who is his spouse.

Accordingly, in order to preserve the judgment claim of this case against B, the Plaintiff seeks to terminate the above title trust agreement between B and the Defendant, and seek against B the Defendant the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust regarding the apartment of this case.

B. According to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her sole name during the marriage shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse should bear the price for the real estate in question and prove that the other spouse acquired the real estate in question in order to possess it actually.

At this time, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust with respect to the pertinent real estate, but rather, considering all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse has paid the price for the real possession of the pertinent real estate individually and specifically.

arrow