beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.01 2014가단267481

소유권이전등기말소등기

Text

1. The defendant is the District Court of the Dong-gu with respect to the size of 4,202 square meters prior to B in the case of Pakistan to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 26, 1930, the land survey division and the land survey division on the land stipulated in Paragraph 1 of the order of entry in the land survey division and the registry (hereinafter “instant land”) were listed as C in the title of assessment, and thereafter the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of D, which is the head of household heir, was completed as the receipt of the branch office of the Sungsung District Court on July 26, 1930.

B. E and the Defendant’s lawsuit (1) E purchased the instant land from G on April 16, 1942 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 18, 1942, but the registry was destroyed or lost. He asserted that he purchased the instant land from F on April 10, 198 from F, and on behalf of F, against the Republic of Korea, confirmed that the instant land was owned by F, and filed a lawsuit against F seeking the registration of ownership transfer against F (Seoul District Court’s government branch court’s decision 96Nu5067) and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “the first judgment”).

(2) The first decision became final and conclusive on June 3, 1997. The first decision became final and conclusive on June 3, 1997. (2) E completed the registration of ownership in the name of F in subrogation of F on June 24, 1997 by the Government Branch Office of Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court Decision No. 28067, Jun. 24, 1997; and completed the registration of ownership in the name of F on April 10, 1988. (3) E submitted a certificate of sale proving that the land of this case was F in the above lawsuit, but it was stated that the above certificate of sale was a forged document and was finally convicted as a crime of forging a public document or uttering a forged public document, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the land of this case was forged [Seoul District Court Decision 200Da37054, May 24, 200; 200No6714.204].