(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.03.27 2016가단347754

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.03.27 2016가단347754

소유권말소등기

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty E, registered as the owner of a vessel listed in the separate sheet (power D, hereinafter “instant vessel”), issued the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant C on January 21, 2014 with respect to the instant vessel on the ground of sale on January 21, 2014.

B. After that, Defendant C issued the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 1753) with respect to the instant vessel to Defendant B on October 13, 2015, on October 14, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 1753) was made on October 14, 2015, and the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 1852) with respect to the instant vessel on October 13, 2015, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. (1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant vessel from E and entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant C with a good credit in order to obtain more loans because only the loan under the Plaintiff’s name was impossible to purchase the instant vessel, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C.

B. Meanwhile, F, who arranged the sale of the instant vessel, was well aware that the name of Defendant C, one’s own book, was based on the title trust agreement, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B, one’s own child, based on false bonds.

Defendant C is liable for the Plaintiff to transfer ownership based on the termination of title trust with respect to the instant vessel, and the registration of ownership transfer based on the sales contract concluded between Defendant C and Defendant B is anti-social legal act or based on the false representation of agreement and thus null and void. As such, Defendant C is liable to cancel each registration with respect to the Plaintiff who subrogated Defendant C.

B. The actual purchaser of the instant vessel alleged by the Defendant is not the Plaintiff but G.

In other words, the plaintiff is merely an investment in ship operation funds to G in a de facto marital relationship with his/her father or mother.

Therefore, the plaintiff is therefore the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단51466

-부산지법 1998. 5. 20. 선고 98가합1754 판결：확정

-광주고법 1967. 11. 29. 선고 67나144,145 제2민사부판결 : 상고

-대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 95다25770 판결

-부산지방법원 2017.03.30 2016구합20747