logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.28 2014가단23365
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 27, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 27, 2004 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by C, and thereafter, on January 7, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 28, 2010 (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 15 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that D, the father of the Plaintiff, is the actual owner of the instant real estate, and the Defendant was residing as the tenant of the instant real estate. However, around 2009, D, as the representative director, D, as the joint and several surety for D’s debt of KRW 1.5 billion against Korea Technology Investment Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is a director, the Plaintiff and D, as the joint and several surety for D’s debt of KRW 1.5 billion, it would be more easy to receive the loan if the Defendant, who had aided the Plaintiff’s real estate business, was in a state where the Plaintiff had no tenant

Therefore, the registration of transfer of this case should be cancelled as a registration of invalidity based on false conspiracy with the defendant. Therefore, the transfer of ownership is sought against the defendant based on the restoration of the true name.

B. 1) The judgment on the cause of a claim is presumed to have been completed by a legitimate cause of registration from the fact that it exists formally. Although the registration titleholder asserts that he/she acquired the name of registration for any reason other than that recorded in the register, even if such assertion is not acknowledged, it cannot be said that the presumption of registration itself is broken. Thus, even in such a case, the registration is held liable to assert and prove the cause of invalidation on the ground that the registration was completed without any cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997).

arrow