The Republic of Korea is not obligated to express his/her consent to the plaintiff in respect of the request for cancellation registration of ownership transfer.

Whether the registration of ownership transfer between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA constitutes an invalid title trust

Article 4 of the Real Estate Real Name Act

2016da207057 Action for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, etc.

▲▲▲

1. Korea;

2. Yang-gun:

3. Amateur group:

August 24, 2016

October 19, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant Republic of Korea expressed his/her intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed as of May 27, 2014 by the Suwon District Court Yang Jong-si Registry on the receipt of No. 22646 on May 27, 2014; and (b) the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as of May 27, 2014 by the receipt of No. 22647 on May 27, 2014; and (c) the Defendant Pyeongtaek-gun expressed his/her intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as of May 27, 2014 by the receipt of No. 22647, May 27, 2014.

(The part on Defendant AA, BB, and Incheon Metropolitan City among the lawsuits in this case was determined as withdrawal)

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant AA for sale of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant AB’s name on May 27, 2014. However, Defendant AA completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under Defendant BB’s name on the same day without the Plaintiff’s consent. Defendant AA completed the registration of seizure of the ownership of Defendant AA’s ownership (U.S., North Korea Office of Disposition) and the right to claim ownership transfer of Defendant BB’s provisional registration. Defendant AA completed the seizure registration of Defendant AA’s ownership, and Defendant AB completed the seizure registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of Defendant BB’s provisional registration. Defendant Pyeong-gun completed the seizure registration of Defendant AA’s ownership, and Defendant BB completed the seizure registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of Defendant BB’s provisional registration.

The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant AA is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Since the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership by Defendant BB, which was based on the provisional registration, is also subject to cancellation by the invalidation, the Defendants who completed the seizure registration as to each of the above registrations, are obliged to express

2. Determination

On the other hand, real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by a legitimate registrant from the fact that it exists in its form, and a person who asserts that he/she had registered in trust with another person shall be liable to prove the title trust (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479 Decided October 29, 2015).

In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants were based on the premise that each registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant AA with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet was null and void as it was in accordance with a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption that each registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant AA was made through a "trade, which is the cause of registration on the register," and to prove that each registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant AA was made through a "trade, which is the cause of registration on the register," and to prove that it was based on a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA, and there is no other evidence to prove that it was otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.