beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.03.09 2015가단77994

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2015, A donated each land listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) to H (hereinafter “instant donation”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under H’s name on the grounds of donation on the same day.

B. On February 20, 2016 after the filing of the instant lawsuit, A, as inheritor, died with the Plaintiffs, K, and H, who are their children.

H On March 9, 2016, the heir died with his wife L, Defendant I, Defendant J, and Defendant J. On July 5, 2016, Defendant I and Defendant J completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land on the grounds of inheritance by agreement division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 14, 34 through 36, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants’ defense prior to the merits constitutes an act in which A did not grant the Plaintiffs’ attorney the power of attorney regarding the instant lawsuit, or even if the appearance of the power of attorney exists, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiffs, and constitutes an act in which A lost its normal mental capacity due to dementia diseases, etc.

Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs, who are inheritors, filed a lawsuit by a person who has no power of attorney and ratified the lawsuit of this case illegal, if the right of formation, such as the right of ratification of the lawsuit of this case, has been jointly inherited, such right shall be reverted to all co-inheritors in an indivisible manner and shall be exercised by all co-inheritors. It is clear that H and the defendants who are co-inheritors and their parties to the lawsuit of this case

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as illegal because it constitutes a defect in granting the power of attorney.

(b) Determination Party A’s statements and images of Gap’s 17 to 19, 21, 22, Eul’s 4 to 7, 9, and 11, and the M hospital head of this Court.