beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts under the basis of facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 1, and 2, or in combination with the purport of all pleadings. A.
In Incheon District Court Decision 2008Gahap5263 decided Oct. 14, 2008, where the Plaintiff claimed the return of the sales contract amount against Nonparty G, mediation was established that “G shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 124 million up to February 28, 2009, but if the said amount is not paid by the above date, it shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant mediation”).”
B. On March 19, 2012, G completed the registration of ownership transfer for Defendant D on March 19, 2012, based on the sale on March 9, 2012 (hereinafter “instant first sale”) with respect to H 3939 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On April 10, 2015, G completed each registration of transfer of ownership on April 3, 2015 to Defendant E with respect to the share of 459/1385 square meters (hereinafter “second-party land”) out of 1385 square meters before Kimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do, for the share of 496/1385, to Defendant C with respect to the share of 496/1385, and to Defendant B with respect to the share of 430/1385, respectively.
2. As to claims against Defendant B, C, and E
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) G bears the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the instant conciliation but sells the instant land to Defendant B, C, and E, the sole property of which is its own property, constitutes a fraudulent act.
B. G is not a title trustee of the instant second land, and even if a title trustee is a title trustee, this constitutes a contract title trust, and the Defendants do not have the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the instant second land, and thus, each registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants is consistent with