beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.01 2018나70731

소유권이전등기

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) The buyer, the seller of the Republic of Korea, the seller of the goods, the seller of the goods, the seller of the goods, the 36th square meters of the old Incheon Jung-gu, the 11th square meters of the floor of a house, and the 85,000 square meters of the proceeds of sale (west 1954) and the short-term 4287.

5. 31.The housing site and other related sales contract for the real estate owned by the owner was prepared.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu B large 240.8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") is the land divided by the Gu Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government E.

C. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 2, 1955 on the real estate of this case on September 11, 1948.

On the other hand, on July 24, 1956, F purchased shares from the Defendant from the Defendant, 54.5/240.8 of the instant real estate, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 9, 1979.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Evidence No. 9-5, and purport of the whole pleading

2. On May 31, 1954, C, the Plaintiff’s husband, entered into a contract with the Defendant for sale of property devolving upon the part of 119.082 square meters among the instant real estate (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and paid the purchase price in full.

G, a South-North Korea of C succeeded to the Plaintiff’s alleged land from C, and donated the said land to H, one’s own mother and the wife of C. H donated the said land to Samnam, and the Plaintiff, a South-North Korea of D, inherited the said land from D, and owned the said land from April 9, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of shares among the instant real estate corresponding to the Plaintiff’s land, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s land.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the Plaintiff is in possession of the sales contract of this case and a receipt for payment of the sales price, according to the sales contract of this case and the statement of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including each number).

However, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7 can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as follows.