beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in Gap 1-1-5, it can be recognized that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") on June 30, 1998 on the ground of sale as of June 1, 1998, and that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed for the instant real estate as of January 13, 2004 on the ground of sale as of January 7, 2004.
In full view of Gap's statements and the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap 2-1, 2-2, 4, 5-3, and 5-4, while the plaintiff holds a registration certificate of the real estate of this case, the defendant did not hold it, and the defendant served as a member of the Diplomatic Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Diplomatic Association") from June 22, 2008 to April 10, 201. The real estate of this case is the land adjacent to the D church training center, and the defendant prepared a written pledge to the effect that all the movable and immovable property of this case, which are located before and after the defendant on June 30, 201, will be returned to D church within one month, and it is clear in the record that the defendant failed to submit any data on the details of financing for the purchase of the real estate of this case.
According to the above facts, since the defendant acquired the real estate of this case in accordance with the title trust agreement during the period when he is employed as a member of the Diplomatic Association, the registration of transfer of ownership completed around January 13, 2004 in the future of the defendant shall be null and void pursuant to Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Name Act”), and since the registration of real estate is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration itself, it is presumed that it exists in formality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479, Oct. 29, 2015), the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the real estate of this case in accordance with the presumption of the above registration record.
Therefore, it is true.