소유권보존등기말소등기절차이행
1. The defendant shall have jurisdiction over the Suwon District Court with respect to the area of 516 square meters in Leecheon-si to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (J). The Suwon District Court shall have jurisdiction over Dongcheon-si registry office 196.
1. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed with respect to the content of the claim in this case against K 516 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff asserted that the registration in the name of the Defendant was invalid as a result of acquiring a co-ownership share on the instant land from the network L and thus having the right to claim the registration of transfer, and that the said registration was completed without any cause. The Plaintiff sought cancellation as a co-owner’s preservation act on behalf of the co-inheritors, who are co-inheritors of the above deceased.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. The instant land was land under the circumstances of M on June 14, 1912. M died on or around January 4, 1962, M jointly inherited M’s property with other inheritors. N died on or around October 15, 1983, and N died on or around October 14, 1984, the remainder of N’s property was solely inherited to the wife L, who was the wife.
B. On July 21, 2002, L transferred N’s inheritance shares among the rights to all land owned by M, including the instant land before subdivision, to the Plaintiff, and separately transferred to the Plaintiff all the rights to real estate owned by N around March 23, 2005.
C. L died on April 10, 2009 and jointly succeeded to L’s property by B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. D.
On the other hand, as to the land of this case, the defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation by the Suwon District Court Leecheon District Court Leecheon District Court No. 3839, Feb. 9, 1996.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts, inasmuch as M does not have counter-proof evidence, such as the change of the content of the land in question as the land was assessed as M as its owner, M acquired the land in question at the original time and his heir acquired ownership, and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was broken out.
Therefore, the defendant's acquisition by succession of the land of this case is specific.