beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Damage which is to be compensated for on the ground of a tort by relevant legal doctrine is a clear damage that actually suffered. As such, in a case where a victim is liable to a third party due to a tort, the obligee’s liability is realistic and conclusive, in order to seek damages equivalent to the amount of the debt to the obligor, and the obligee’s actual repayment should be determined objectively and reasonably in light of social norms.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da29948 Decided November 27, 1992; 2013Da65604 Decided June 12, 2014, etc.).2.
A. From around 1980, the aggregate building of the second and fourth floor above ground was newly built on the ground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, 708.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On November 14, 1986, among the instant buildings, “No. 65.8/10 of the ownership” was registered in the part of the indication of land which is the object of a site ownership in the title section of the title section of the building of this case and “No. 708.1/708 of the ownership” in the part of the indication of a site ownership. Of them, the part of the indication of a site ownership was cancelled on the ground of erroneous discovery on January 17, 1991.
C. I and J acquired shares from H on May 4, 1984 65.8/1416.2 of each of the instant land (i.e., 32.9/708.1) and I completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant G on January 17, 1991.
D) On April 16, 191, 191, D purchased shares of 32.9/708.1 of the instant G and the instant land from I, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on May 17, 1991.
E. Although a considerable share of the instant land was registered as a site ownership of the said condominium building, the site ownership registration was not made with respect to each share of 32.9/708.1 shares owned by I and J respectively.
F. As the registry of this case was computerized on June 14, 1999, the part of the site ownership indication due to the mistake of a registered public official, as the registry of this case was computerized on June 14, 199.