beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단3498

원인무효에 의한 소유권이전등기말소 등

Text

1. The Plaintiff (designated parties) and the appointed parties, among H forest land H 5,157 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and Defendant D shall share 3/9.

Reasons

1. Claim against Defendant D, E, F, and G

A. On March 24, 1970, J purchased the instant land owned by J from March 24, 1970

The J died on June 1, 2014, and succeeded to the property of Defendant D and his children, Defendant E, F and G, who are the wife of the J.

I died on March 17, 2009, and the plaintiff (appointed party, hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the designated parties inherited I's property.

Accordingly, Defendant D, E, F, and G are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1-3, there is no dispute between the parties to the claim against Defendant B and C, or evidence Nos. 1 and 1-3, K and the Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant land on April 7, 1971, and K died on December 26, 1996, and Defendant B died on December 26, 199.

The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of ownership in the name of K and Defendant C is null and void, on March 24, 1970, that the mother of the Plaintiff and the designated parties paid KRW 16 million to J, the owner of the instant land, and purchased the land. However, K, the Plaintiff, the mother of the Plaintiff and the designated parties, purchased the land by paying KRW 16 million, without I and I, completed the transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land in the name of K and Defendant C.

The evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone purchased the instant land by I

It is insufficient to recognize that K and Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer without I and I as the purchaser of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this is rejected.