beta
Text
1. In accordance with the claim of the main lawsuit that was changed in exchange at the trial, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall attach attached Form 1 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: 1.B. With respect to the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit whose exchange has been changed in the court of first instance.
The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as follows, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the following: 2nd to 3nd 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e) is used.
[Supplementary part] 1.B.
Judgment
Pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, both title trust agreements and ownership transfer registrations with respect to the instant real estate are null and void. The fact that the registration indicated in the Plaintiff’s name was made, as seen earlier, that the ownership was registered under the Plaintiff’s name. As such, the Plaintiff may seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on ownership based on the ownership to restore the real name of registration to the Defendant,
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant real estate to the Plaintiff based on the restoration of real name.
(The plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the termination of the title trust agreement at the first instance court, but sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true name from the trial court, and subsequently amended the claim in exchange for an additional determination
A. The Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 40 million on July 16, 2013 (the selective addition of the cause of the claim in the trial) is premised on the Defendant’s transfer to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2013 and delivery of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2013, on the premise that the Defendant is the Defendant’s own capital.