소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The deceased I (Death on May 17, 2014) and the deceased JJ (Death on December 22, 2016) were de facto marital relations from around 1996, which were the owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) as indicated in the summary of the cause of the claim.
The deceased I unfairly reversed the de facto marital relationship, and the deceased J acquired a provisional disposition on May 12, 2014 as to the ownership (1/2 shares) of each real estate of this case as a preserved right by exercising the right to claim the division of property.
As the network I died on May 17, 204, Defendant C, D, and Nonparty E (Defendant F and Defendant G division) completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance due to a consultation and division, 1/3 shares of each of the instant real estate, respectively. On June 13, 2014, Nonparty E completed the registration of ownership transfer based on Defendant F and G’s gift.
The plaintiff succeeded to the right to divide the property of the deceased J as the heir of the deceased J, and the defendants are obligated to transfer half of each share to the plaintiff.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s claim for property division should be acknowledged first of all, such as ① the fact that the deceased and I was a de facto marital relationship with the deceased and ② the fact that the de facto marital relationship with the deceased and I became a de facto marital relationship with the deceased and ③ the fact that the deceased’s claim for property division occurred.
B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the relationship between the deceased I and the deceased has reached a de facto marital relationship.
Although the relationship between the deceased and the deceased’s resident registration and the deceased’s family registration is indicated as “ wife”, it is difficult to readily conclude that it is a de facto marriage.
C. Even if it is recognized that the relationship of the deceased was a de facto marital relationship, the reason why the deceasedJ rendered a provisional disposition with respect to the share of 1/2 of each real estate of this case as a preserved right is reversed by the de facto marital relationship among the deceased.