(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가합112817

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가합112817

소유권이전등기

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 2015, G died on May 15, 2015, and G’s successors are children, Plaintiffs and Defendant.

B. On June 19, 2015, and October 20, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s sole name with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, which are G’s inherited property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

1. Determination on the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true title

A. The plaintiffs' arguments and the defendant agreed after G death that "the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 for the convenience of lease or sale shall be completed in the name of the defendant alone on the grounds of inheritance by agreement division, but the proceeds from lease or sale shall be distributed to the plaintiffs according to their shares in inheritance," and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 in accordance

However, the above agreement is a title trust agreement and is null and void in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real estate title with respect to the portion of 1/6 shares listed in

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the title trust agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 3 through 11, and the testimony of the witness H is concluded with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, which the plaintiffs and the defendant hold the ownership of shares according to their respective shares of inheritance. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above claims are without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiffs' arguments and the defendant lease after G death.

참조조문

-부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2013.08.23 2012가합7079

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.04.29 2014가단26462

-인천지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가단250822

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.10.10 2017가단21707

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.09.29 2016가단76356