beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2013나56043

소유권보존등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: “F, etc.” (hereinafter “F, etc.”) No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as “F, etc.”; “this court” shall be as “court of the first instance”; “F, etc.” (hereinafter “F, etc.”) and “F, etc.,” (hereinafter “F, etc.”) shall be as “Court of the first instance”; and “F, etc.,” (hereinafter “F, etc.) shall be as “F, etc.,” and

Plaintiff’s assertion

-

B. In addition to the following cases, whether a title trust of the land prior to the division is established or not, it is identical to the written judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【A. The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion was owned by the Plaintiff at the time of the circumstance, but there was no ground to be considered in the name of the clan, and the Plaintiff’s title trust was given to F, etc., and the Defendant was found to have been aware of the instant land divided from the said land prior to the said division. The Plaintiff has the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of title trust by subrogation of the heir, such as F, etc., on behalf of the Defendant, on the ground that the heir, who is the title holder of the instant land, has the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of title trust. (b) The determination of whether the Plaintiff’s title trust was held with respect to the land prior to the division is made. Accordingly, according to each of the items of evidence Nos. 1-2 through 6, and evidence No. 3-1 through 4, 1981, the Plaintiff was divided from the said land prior to the said division to the Gyeonggi-gun Special Measures Act (No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

(2) The plaintiff was on November 22, 1935, 1935. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13580, Nov. 22, 1935>