소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) attached to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the female of D, and the defendants are the children of D.
B. D completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 1993 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
C. D died on June 24, 2012, and the Defendants succeeded to D’s property.
On the other hand, the plaintiff is residing in the real estate of this case from February 11, 2000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the claim of the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from D around 1996 or around 2000, asserting that the Defendants, as the inheritors of D, are liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate.
However, it is not enough to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from D solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 and the testimony of witness E.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.
3. Regarding a counterclaim
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff possessing the instant real estate has a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendants, the owner of the instant real estate, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a title to possess the instant real estate since it purchased the instant real estate from D, but there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the said assertion as above.
In addition, at the time D’s transfer to the U.S. around June 1994, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to a third party in KRW 20,000,00,000. Since the Plaintiff returned the deposit to a third party and succeeded to the lessee’s status around 2000, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendants had the right to possess the instant real estate until the lease contract is terminated and the deposit is returned.
However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to support D to a third party.