beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단13821

토지소유권이전등기절차이행

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The previous land of this case was originally owned by G. H. on August 19, 1983, 8/1005 shares in the previous land of this case, 22/1005 shares in the previous land of this case to H on July 8, 1994, 44/1005 shares in the previous land of this case to J on August 9, 1994, 44/1005 shares in the previous land of this case and 39/1005 shares in the designated land of this case to D on September 28, 1994, and 39/1005 shares in the previous land of this case to D on September 28, 1994.

As a result, G, J, Appointed, I, and H shared the previous land in proportion to the ratio of 892/105, 44/1005, 39/105, 22/105, 8/1005, respectively.

B. The share 22/1005 of I was transferred through K and L to the Selection E on March 30, 2002.

C. G transferred 892/1005 of its equity interest to B on September 15, 2009.

J transferred 4/1005 of its own shares to Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on February 22, 2012 due to sale and purchase.

E. As of February 22, 2012, the previous land in this case was owned by B, Plaintiff (Appointed Party), D, Selection Party E, E, and H at the rate of 892/105, 44/105, 39/105, 22/105, 22/105, and 8/1005, respectively.

F. Meanwhile, in the process of incorporating part of the previous land into a road site as a part of a residential environment improvement project on November 2012, the previous land was divided into F-dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City into 18 square meters (hereinafter “F-land”), M, M, 522 square meters (hereinafter “M land”), N, N, 31 square meters (hereinafter “N”), O, 355 square meters (hereinafter “O”), C, 79 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”), and double-O land was acquired through consultation with the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City on September 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 to 4

2. The Plaintiff’s previous land of this case had three lots of unauthorized buildings constructed. However, the above buildings are subject to subdivision because their area is very small.