beta
(영문) 창원지방법원거창지원 2016.05.03 2015가단279

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 194, the network E (hereinafter “the network”) completed the registration of preservation of ownership or completed the registration of transfer of ownership as listed below with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”, and, where each land is individually specified, it shall be specified by the sequence thereof).

No. 7420 of land No. 7414 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992) No. 7414 of May 19, 1994, No. 7418 of land No. 7419 of No. 7416 of land No. 7417 of No. 7447 of No. 7417 of land No. 7417 of No. 7448 of land No. 7417 of No. 74429 of land No. 7429 of land No. 7420 of land No. 7429 of May 19, 194

B. On July 30, 1995, the Deceased died, and his heir was the deceased’s spouse, and the Defendant and G, H, I, J, and K were the deceased on October 30, 2014.

C. On December 20, 2007, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer as described in the purport of the claim on May 30, 1995 with respect to each of the instant land based on the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 7500, May 26, 2005; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s assertion constitutes a claim for recovery of inheritance, and the claim for recovery of inheritance becomes extinct at the lapse of three years from the date of becoming aware of the infringement.

The Plaintiffs were notified by the head of the Manyang-gun on October 2007 of “the Defendant’s application for the issuance of the Defendant’s confirmation under the Special Assistance Act” and should be deemed to have known that the inheritance right was infringed.

Therefore, the plaintiffs became aware of the infringement.