소유권확인
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by C.
1. On December 22, 1970, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of “E” was completed with respect to the 1,839.2 square meters in the basic fact Kim Jong-do.
After that, on December 17, 2001, F.F. road was registered by partition on the above land on December 17, 2001, and as a result, Kim Jong-si D 1,275.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s land purchased at the same time from the Plaintiff’s clan and the Defendant’s clan and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by attaching the title “E” to the Plaintiff’s clan’s “H” and the Defendant’s clan’s “I.” As the Defendant used 1/2 of the profit accrued from the lease of the instant land to the Plaintiff for a private purpose without paying the Plaintiff from 2013 to the Plaintiff, it is irrelevant to the operation of G, and thus, the Plaintiff, who actually operated G, is deemed to be the sole owner of the instant land, and thus seeking its confirmation.
3. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case as to the legality of the lawsuit of this case.
The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property jointly owned. Barring special circumstances, it shall go through a resolution of the general meeting of members pursuant to the provisions of Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act, so even where a clan which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving the property jointly owned by it, it shall go through
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da83650 Decided February 11, 2010). As to whether the Plaintiff’s clan was subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the clan in relation to the filing of the instant case, the health room and the statement of the resolution (No. 2) submitted by the Plaintiff was merely the content that the Plaintiff’s representative of the Plaintiff’s clan was appointed at a meeting (it cannot be known whether it is a general meeting or another meeting) with an unknown body on February 1, 2014.