logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.15 2014나2072
가등기의 말소등기 절차이행 청구권
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Defendants asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name is null and void due to anti-social legal act. Thus, the Plaintiff is not a legitimate owner of the instant apartment, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the Defendants.

On the other hand, in the case of title trust of real estate, ownership is externally reverted to the trustee. Thus, in the event that the trustee disposes of the real estate entrusted to a third party, the third party acquires the ownership of the trust property completely effective unless there are special reasons such as invalidity or cancellation of the disposal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da2576, 2583, Apr. 9, 2009). The Defendants asserted that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the plaintiff as it was made in accordance with the demands of active voluntary disposal along with the Plaintiff’s proposal for payment of consideration, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the plaintiff as being due to anti-social legal act. However, the testimony of the witness I and the witness I of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the plaintiff as being due to the anti-social legal act, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow