logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.08 2016나10743
증여계약에 의한 소유권이전등기 말소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent order for implementation shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (Namnam), MaD (Death on or after the end of May 201, 201), and E (Nam) are children of the net F (Death on September 10, 201, hereinafter “the deceased”) and G are the wife of the Deceased.

Co-defendant B of the first instance trial is a child of the network D, and the defendant is a child of E.

B. On September 19, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) on the ground of a donation from September 1, 201 (hereinafter “instant donation”) with respect to one half of the instant real estate owned by the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion E is based on the fact that the deceased was in a mixed state, thereby forging a false donation contract regardless of the deceased’s will and completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff

3. Whether the part exceeding 1/2 of the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

In other words, a lawsuit claiming for the cancellation of a registration against a person who is not a person liable for registration, whose right is lost or who is not a person who is not a person (registration titleholder or his general successor) due to the registration, is illegal against a person who is not a party.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da39225, Feb. 25, 1994).

However, the part of the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration concerning the part exceeding 1/2 of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant among the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff sought cancellation of ownership transfer registration concerning the entire real estate of this case against the Defendant, who is merely a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant real estate.

4. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Where a registration has been completed with respect to any real estate, special circumstances;

arrow