beta
청주지방법원 2015.09.17 2014가합28166

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a clan consisting of descendants who jointly set up C29 years old D [D: E] as well as the descendants.

B. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the State on March 17, 1922 (11 year in 192) and the name of the State on March 17, 1922 (2), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s protocol F on September 6, 1938 (13 years in 193). (3) The Defendant’s name on November 16, 1946; (4) the Plaintiff’s name attached G and HH, I, J, K, and K on February 16, 1946; (5) each ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name on October 23, 197; and (6) the ownership transfer was completed in the name of L, M, and N on December 8, 1973.

C. On December 6, 1994, the Defendant was issued and delivered a certificate to the effect that the Defendant actually purchased and owned the instant real estate from O, P, and Q, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) on June 29, 1995 under the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including each number), and the result of fact inquiry to the head of the Sinju-si Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, even though having not purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, L, M, and N, was prepared and delivered by false certificates from O, P, and Q and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case. Therefore, the part equivalent to 1/4 of the Plaintiff’s share among the registration of ownership transfer of this case should be cancelled

B. The registration under the Act on Special Measures for Determination 1 is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and thus the presumption is reversed.