2015Da215823 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. A;

2. B

C

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na53401 Decided April 17, 2015

August 27, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, the disputing party must assert and prove the grounds for invalidation. The real estate registration argues that the process or form leading to the announcement of the present true state of rights is valid even if it is not reflected in the process or form leading to the announcement, and that it is not in accordance with the grounds for registration entered in the register in the former owner's acquisition of real estate for other reasons, and that the latter owner's legitimate acquisition of real estate for other reasons is somewhat different from the form or process of the act of registration. On the contrary, it cannot be said that only such assertion has broken the presumption of registration.

Therefore, in such a case, the opposing party must assert and prove that the registration titleholder’s transfer of ownership was made against his/her will, such as the transfer of ownership, and that it is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da42980, Feb. 27, 1996; 97Da2993, Jun. 24, 1997).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case where the transfer registration of ownership (hereinafter referred to as "transfer registration of ownership") was completed on December 29, 201 with respect to the apartment of this case owned by the deceased D (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), on November 15, 201, in the future of the defendant on December 29, 2011, the court below acknowledged that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was completed on the premise that the deceased and the defendant did not actually sell the apartment of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased and the defendant did not sell the apartment of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case on the ground of a sales contract between the deceased and the defendant is null and void because there is no reason for registration, and the evidence alone submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the deceased donated the apartment of this case to the defendant, and thus, accepted the plaintiffs' claim seeking the cancellation of the transfer registration

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant and the person interested in de facto marriage, who acquired the apartment of this case by paying the sale price with his own funds, and only her mother was living in the name of the deceased. The deceased, E, and the defendant agreed to donate the apartment of this case to the defendant and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant. The witness F of the court of first instance also testified for the same purpose. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant asserted that the defendant had completed the registration of the apartment of this case for reasons other than those stated in the register, and thus, it cannot be said that the presumption of the registration of transfer of ownership of this case cannot be said to be broken, and even in such a case, the plaintiffs should assert and prove that the transfer of ownership of

Nevertheless, solely for the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of registration, on the premise that the defendant has the burden of proving that the apartment of this case was acquired by donation.

3. In addition, the court below held that even if E has title trusted the apartment of this case to the deceased, and the deceased has completed the registration of this case in order to return the name of the apartment of this case to E, it would eventually be deemed that the deceased, E, and the defendant would have agreed again to trust the apartment of this case to the defendant again, and that such third party title trust agreement was null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual

However, the defendant asserts that the deceased actually donated the apartment of this case to the defendant in consultation with E, which is the actual owner of the apartment of this case, so it cannot be readily concluded that the apartment of this case was the title trust to the defendant, and even though the plaintiffs asserted that the ownership transfer registration of this case was null and void as it was in accordance with the above legal principles, there is a burden of proving that the apartment of this case was a title trust to the defendant without any particular reason or ground, and the judgment of the court below that the ownership transfer registration of this case was null and void is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young