beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나22660

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part, thereby citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant forest was geographically divided from H forest at the time of the division of the I forest and J forest into five parts of H forest land located within five parts of 21 to five parts of H forest land at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the area includes the area of H forest), but the number of the instant forest was not imposed on the grounds of the public official’s error, etc.

Since then, due to the mistake of the public official in charge, etc., the forest of this case was incorporated into a limited forest separated from the J Forest that is adjacent thereto, and the forest register was erroneously entered.

Therefore, as a claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership, we seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendants.

B. According to the statement No. 9-2 (Certified Copy of Closed Forest) of the judgment No. 9-2, only the fact that the forest of this case was included in L before it was divided on December 5, 1967 upon the request of the Defendants, is recognized, and there was no lot number in the forest of this case at the time of subdivision on October 16, 1931, which was 5 Y 21 to 5 Y 1931.

As to the fact that the forest of this case was incorporated into J forest or L forest on the grounds of mistake by public officials in charge, etc., each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 20 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is.