[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1977민(1),233]
The propriety of the request for cancellation of any part entered in the registration slip book as a result of merger
The plaintiff is seeking the cancellation of the part in the column of the registration slip form to the defendant, but the defendant cannot be deemed as the obligor for the cancellation registration of the part in the title column of the above merger, and it cannot be deemed that there is any legal disadvantage, such as the reduction of the substantive legal relationship with respect to the plaintiff's real estate. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit against a person without standing to be a party.
Article 16 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and three others
Suwon District Court of the first instance (75 Gohap536)
(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.
(2) During the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant 2 regarding the claim for cancellation of the part of the recording due to a merger among the third parts of the registration number No. 13272, the registration number No. 13272, as to the real estate stated in the attached Table No. 132, against Defendant 2, shall be dismissed, and all of the
(3) The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
(1) On December 29, 1965, Defendant 1: (a) as to each of the above real estate; (b) as to each of the above real estate on December 28, 1965; (c) as to each of the above real estate on March 14, 1970; (d) as to each of the above real estate on March 14, 1970; (c) as to each of the above real estate on March 14, 197; (d) as to each of the above real estate on April 12, 197; (e) as to each of the above real estate on March 14, 1970; (e) as to each of the above real estate on April 13, 197; (e) as to each of the above real estate; (e) as to the establishment of a mortgage contract by the registry office on December 16, 1971; (e) as to each of the above real estate; (e) as to each of the above list No. 130.14397.
Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. First, the Plaintiff requested Defendant 2, Co., Ltd. to cancel 187 square meters of the merger among column 3 of the registration number No. 13272, Apr. 12, 1972, among column 3 of the registration number No. 13272 of the registration number No. 132, the Plaintiff requested for the cancellation of the part indicated in this term. However, Defendant 2, Co., Ltd. cannot be deemed as the person liable for the cancellation registration for the part indicated in the title section due to the merger as to the above merger, and it cannot be deemed that there is any legal disadvantage such as reducing the substantive rights to the real estate in this case by the Committee. Thus, the lawsuit of the above cancellation claim shall not be dismissed as a lawsuit against a person without standing as a party.
2. We examine the remaining claims against the above defendant and the remaining defendants except the above defendant.
With respect to the real estate stated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), the registration of initial ownership, transfer of ownership, registration of establishment of neighboring superficies and registration of establishment of superficies under the name of the defendants is not disputed between the parties, and according to the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (register of each real estate), Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, 4-1, and the result of verification of criminal records of the party's trial (excluding the following portion trust), and the whole purport of pleadings, the real estate of this case was originally owned by the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, who died on March 24, 1940 and succeeded to it as the family heir, was not registered as the non-party 4, and the list (1), (2), (3), and (3) as to the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 as the non-party 2's owner and the non-party 2's owner of each of the above real estate was registered as the non-party 2, and the non-party 197 (197).2).7).1.
As such, the Plaintiff is presumed to have recovered from Nonparty 2. Therefore, barring special circumstances, it would be assumed that the Plaintiff, a Australia heir at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Resident Act, inherited the instant real estate. The registration of transfer of each of the above ownership in the name of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1, the former owner on the registry, is completed after Nonparty 1’s death, and it cannot be deemed that there is no presumption of legitimate acquisition of rights. However, the Defendants, despite Nonparty 2’s absence of parental relation between Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff, cannot be viewed as having been asserted that there is no birth relation between Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2, and the first instance court’s non-party 4’s non-party 1 and the non-party 4’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party-party 9’s non-party-party 2’s non-party-party-party 2’s non-party-party-party 4 evidence testimony and the first-party 2’s testimony evidence.
Therefore, unlike the statement on the family register, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the father of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and it is not the non-party 2's child born out of wedlock, and it is not possible to deem that the adoption was effective since the report on the investment made by the non-party 2 was substituted for the report on adoption (Supreme Court Decision 67Da1004 delivered on July 18, 1967, and Supreme Court Decision 67Da1004 delivered on July 18, 196). Thus, it
3. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. regarding the claim for cancellation of the part recorded in the separate sheet due to a merger with regard to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet against Defendant 2, shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the above Defendant’s claim against the above Defendant and the remainder of the Defendants except the above Defendant’s claim against the above Defendant shall be dismissed without merit. The original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair. The Defendants’ appeal against this is justified and the original judgment shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by application of Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act
Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)