beta
Text
1. The defendant is the Jeju District Court with respect to each real estate stated in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 was owned by C, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in D’s name on March 21, 2012 due to sale and purchase on February 23, 2012. The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 was owned by E, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in D’s name on the same day on April 30, 2014.
B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on September 30, 2014, which was received on September 30, 2014 from the Jeju District Court Seopo District Court Seopo District Office.
C. On December 24, 2014, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 4.
[A. Articles 5 through 6 (including paper numbers)]
2. The judgment on title trust is a contract established by the mutual agreement between the parties, and such a contract may be concluded explicitly, explicitly, as well as implicitly. The recognition of title trust is a matter of fact-finding, and where certain evidence or facts exist as a matter of fact-finding, it does not necessarily necessarily necessarily require the recognition of title trust or the recognition thereof. Generally, where only the title of real estate is trusted to another person, documents proving legal relationship, such as a registration certificate, should be held by the title truster, the actual owner.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da1478 Decided March 9, 2001). In light of the fact that the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff a letter recognizing that he had received title trust with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the separate sheet, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet was signed and sealed by the Defendant directly by the Defendant according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, witness F’s testimony, etc., and thus, the authenticity is presumed to be established. The Defendant’s assertion that each of the above notes was forged is difficult to accept.) and that the Plaintiff holds a registration certificate with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet