beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C (place of residence: Toyju-gun D) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 22, 1964 with respect to 1,302 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun on December 28, 1964.
B. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on January 3, 1997 with respect to the instant land upon the indictment of the Jeonju District Court on May 19, 2015. However, on May 22, 2015, the registrar rejected the said application on the ground that “an application for registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land does not coincide with the registration record indicated by the person liable for registration.” The Plaintiff raised an objection, but the Jeonju District Court dismissed the objection on March 24, 2016.
C. On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the grounds of the foregoing paragraph (b) on the ground that (i) an application for the alteration of indication of a registered titleholder on the ground of error in application on December 28, 1964 on the instant land, and (ii) an application for the alteration of registration of ownership on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on January 3, 1997 on the instant land, but on September 12, 2016, an application for the alteration of indication of a registered titleholder on the instant land was filed on September 12, 2016, on the ground that “the application for the alteration of indication of a registered titleholder on the instant land falls under Article 29 subparag. 7 of the Land Techniques because there is no evidence to prove that the applicant is the owner, such as the address on the registry of the deceased, his domicile, domicile, and other materials to prove the ownership transfer registration.” (d) The Plaintiff was dismissed on September 12, 2016 on the ground that it was dismissed by the competent district court prior to appeal.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.