beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단53958

소유권확인등

Text

1. Plaintiff A, 62/117, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, respectively, with the area of 188 square meters for D road, 122 square meters for Si-si E-si, and 3 square meters for F-road.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 경성부 중부(中部) 장통방(長通坊) G(G, 조선전도부 군면리동 명칭일람에 따르면 G 등이 추후 서울 종로구 H으로 행정구역 변경되었다)에 주소를 둔 I는 조선총독부 임시토지조사국의 토지조사사업(1911~1918) 당시 시흥군 J 답 610평, K 전 38평의 소유자로 사정되었다.

B. On February 4, 1915, the Plaintiffs’ conciliation division, whose permanent domicile is in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan L, died after having left the network N as a sole heir. The network N born in O was transferred to the G, i.e., Hosung P on January 28, 1917.

N dead on November 15, 1972, on the part of the co-inheritors Q (the inheritance portion 2/13), the head of family heir A (the inheritance portion 6/13), the plaintiff Namnam (the inheritance portion 6/13), the plaintiff Eul (the inheritance portion 4/13), the plaintiff C (the inheritance portion 1/13) retired on August 196, as the co-inheritors, and Q died on the part of the co-inheritors. On December 24, 1981, the plaintiff A (the U.S. family head), the plaintiff B (the inheritance portion 4/9), the plaintiff C (the inheritance portion 1/9) who was a woman, as the co-inheritors.

C. Meanwhile, after dividing R land into the said J land, D road 18 square meters was divided into the said R land on December 20, 1961, and D land was divided into the said R land on January 1, 1989, and the said D land became 18 square meters of the D road at Silung-si.

After the division of E field 37 square meters and F road 1 square meters in the above K land, each of the above partitioned lands became the E field 122 square meters and F field 3 square meters in Silung-si due to the change of administrative district and the conversion of the area (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above lots of land” in this case).

E. Each land of this case is unregistered.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1-11(Ga number omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, ① the name of the state-based I and the Chinese name of the plaintiffs Ma as well as their address and permanent domicile are almost similar, and ② the address and permanent domicile of the state-based I as the situation-based one at the time of the implementation of the land research project are adjacent to the original address and permanent domicile of the plaintiffs.