beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.04.25 2013가단40055

소유권이전등기말소등기 절차이행

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 22826, Nov. 8, 2006, the Suwon District Court's registry office, which received on Nov. 8, 2006, on the ground of the division of property (this court 2005dhap500) with respect to the land of E forest land 613 square meters (hereinafter "the Plaintiff's forest of this case").

B. On June 29, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 28001 on June 29, 2001, with respect to the land of Suwon District Court 1,620 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s forest”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s forest.

C. Each forest land of the plaintiffs and the defendant in this case overlaps with each other due to different reasons. The overlapping part of each forest land of the plaintiffs and the defendant in this case is one of 114 square meters in line with each of the items in the attached Form 6, 7, 13, 15, 14, and 6, which connects each point of the attached Form (attached Form No. 6, 7, 13, 15, 14, and 6.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination.

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the overlapping land portion and each transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was made on the registration of preservation of ownership, which was made twice by different persons registered with respect to the same real estate. Since the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the Plaintiff’s forest in this case was made prior to the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the Defendant’s forest in this case, the registration

On the other hand, the legal principles of double registration asserted by the plaintiff do not have any problem with the boundary or status of real estate, but only the legal relationship overlaps, that is, the registration form for real estate in one parcel has been prepared double, and the registration of ownership has been made.