beta
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.06.30 2015가단4982

소유권이전등기

Text

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

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

B. Since May 17, 1991, the Defendant’s father D had been registered as of May 17, 1991, the previous 114m2 in Sacheon-si. However, D on September 7, 2002, the said year as to the Defendant’s land.

9.4. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of donation.

The father E died on April 20, 1993.

As shown in the attached Form 28, 29, 30, 31, and 28, the Plaintiff shall have written the E funeral in the part of the “three-dimensional” on the ship.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the entire argument is asserted by the plaintiff. On November 11, 1991, the plaintiff's additional appraisal Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 19 of the attached sheet No. 156 of "bbb" in the line as shown in the attached sheet No. 19, 20,00 won among the 19, 20, 250,000 square meters from the defendant's father D's father's husband's Do, Sacheon-si's 1144 square meters.

The plaintiff received a donation from E in 1990 due to the 1990s.

Since the Defendant acquired the obligation to execute the instant sales contract from D, the Defendant is obligated to complete the registration of transfer of ownership for sale on the part of the BB.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff, around April 20, 1993, used a tomb in part E in the second part and occupied and managed it in good faith and in good faith. The Plaintiff acquired by prescription the part on November 12, 201 (which appears to have been wrong on November 11, 201), which was 20 years from November 11, 1991, the date on which the instant sales contract was made.)

Judgment

On the other hand, a sales contract was entered into between E and D with respect to the primary claim, even if the sales contract of this case was entered into between E and D.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant assumed the obligation to perform the above sales contract from D.

Preliminary claim Nos. 7 and 8.