beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가합544837

소유권말소등기

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the base date and the period of use against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are companies established for the construction and management of railroad facilities under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act, and for the acquisition and management of real estate for businesses incidental thereto, and real estate for business purposes.

On January 1, 2004, the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act enforced on January 1, 2004, the right to manage the facility assets among the railroad assets was comprehensively transferred from the former Railroad Authority to the defendant Corporation.

(A) On March 10, 1995, the head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Administration of the Korea National Railroad Agency (hereinafter “the Korea National Railroad Agency”) authorized the implementation plan for B from the Korea National Railroad on March 10, 1995. On April 23, 1998, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of the acceptance of the C Station transportation facilities and neighborhood shopping facilities construction. On February 17, 2000, the Defendant Corporation granted conditional approval of the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the Plaintiff’s acceptance, and the conditions of permission (Article 19 shall be implemented after the Plaintiff directly obtained the permission from the related agency. Article 28 provides that the donator shall submit the documents of donation to the Defendant Corporation immediately after the completion of the construction of the facilities, and obtain the permission of use and benefit of the Defendant Corporation, and the Plaintiff submitted a notarized letter of performance after obtaining the permission of use and benefit on March 23, 200.

However, on July 10, 200, the Plaintiff expressed his opinion that the permission for construction work should be granted in the name of the Defendant Corporation, since the permission for the implementation plan for the construction work for the construction work for the construction work for the construction work was all granted in the name of the Defendant Corporation.

Accordingly, it.