beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.21 2012가단72502

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The defendant shall restore the authenticity of the shares of 1/5 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant died on February 17, 1997 from the network F’s children (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The Deceased owned each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), but the list Nos. 140

1. As to the recorded real property, the deceased appears to have been transferred to the State on June 15, 1929, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the deceased is the owner;

The Defendant’s list Nos. 18 of October 18, 1994 by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”)

1. On June 23, 1995, registration of ownership preservation on the stated real estate was made, and on June 23, 1984, registration of ownership transfer based on sale (hereinafter “registration of ownership preservation and registration of ownership transfer”) was made, respectively.

C. The deceased’s heir was the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and the Nonparty G, but G died on January 25, 199, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant inherited G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 10 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence No. 1 (as to the result of the written appraisal by the appraiser H, according to the results of the written appraisal by the appraiser H, it is recognized that both the content of each letter and the statement of the defendant's name are made by the defendant, and the authenticity of

A) With respect to the evidence No. 11 (No. 11-1 of A), the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, as the defendant's seal imprint part is not disputed.

The defendant asserted that the above document was forged by plaintiff D, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In full view of the purport of each entry and the whole argument, the defendant paid to the plaintiffs on March 30, 1995 the land and the house in the name of the plaintiffs according to the special assistance law, as the land and the house are convenient.