소유권말소등기
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1-1, Nos. 1, 1, and 2, the Plaintiff’s application for a building permit for Class II neighborhood living facilities on the F-based land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant under the jurisdiction of the competent Sirgur permitted the Plaintiff to donate the instant real estate already incorporated into an urban planning road. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate as stated in the purport of the claim on Aug. 2, 2004. However, the Defendant revoked the designation as an urban planning for the instant real estate on February 23, 2012.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is due to mistake induced by the Defendant by notifying the fact that the instant real estate was incorporated into an urban planning, and since the Defendant revoked the designation as an urban planning, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s donation was null and void due to abuse of public authority by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of ownership transfer made with respect to the instant real estate.
B. First of all, as to the Plaintiff’s allegation of revocation, health class, the right to revoke a legal act is formed, and the exclusion period of the right to form shall be ex officio.
However, the revocation of a juristic act shall be exercised within three years from the date of ratification pursuant to Article 146 of the Civil Act, and within ten years from the date of the juristic act. The record reveals that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on September 19, 2019, which was more than three years from February 23, 2012 when the road planning facilities of this case were altered and ten years from July 23, 2004, which was the donation date.