logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2021.03.25 2019노930
부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률위반등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the factual facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) seller G Co., Ltd. purchased F. 826 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the seller G Co., Ltd., the purchaser is D and E., and the Defendant was only liable for 1/3 of all kinds of expenses, such as the acquisition of the instant land, registration tax, loan interest, etc., for the purpose of obtaining brokerage fees or the resale gains from resale of the instant land, with the aim of obtaining brokerage fees or receiving the part equivalent to 1/3 of the resale gains as “real estate consulting fees.”

Therefore, there is no fact that the Defendant purchased the instant land with D and E around March 13, 2013, as indicated in the facts charged, or concluded a trust agreement with D with D to have the ownership transfer completed the registration under the name of D.

However, the court below recognized that a person who actually purchased 1/3 shares out of the land of this case is the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also acknowledged the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as the grounds for appeal. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion based on the following facts: (i) the defendant's statement that registered the land of this case in his name after the joint purchase of the land of this case with the defendant; (ii) the defendant's purchase of the land of this case from the defendant; (iii) the defendant's trust of the land of 1/3 after the joint purchase of the land of this case with D and D; and (iv) the defendant's judgment was pronounced and confirmed as above; and (v) the defendant's assertion that the "cost of real estate consulting equivalent to 1/3 of the resale profits" is merely a claim for the ownership of 1/3 share of the land of this case.

arrow