logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.10.07 2013가합9390
소유권이전등기말소 등
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On December 8, 192, the registration and receipt of the Seoul Western District Court on December 8, 1992 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”), which was owned by Nonparty C, completed the ownership transfer registration of Plaintiff 1/2, and Defendant 1/2 with respect to each real estate of this case. Since then, the registration and receipt of the Seoul Western District Court on July 10, 1998, the ownership transfer registration of the Defendant was completed under the name of the Seoul Western District Court on July 10, 1998.

The Plaintiff is a person who operated a camera from around 1998 to November 201, 201 in the instant real estate with the trade name “D” (mutual E before the modification), and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s friendship.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional numbers) asserted by the plaintiff on November 26, 1992 that the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case independently from the non-party C on November 26, 1992. The plaintiff married with a Japanese resident and did not exchange with punishments in Japan, and did not know about the defendant's situation that there is no doubt about the relationship with his spouse, and registered 1/2 of the real estate of this case under the name of the defendant (hereinafter "title trust registration of this case").

The Plaintiff changed the instant real estate into a neighborhood living facility and carried on a car screen business from 2000 to 2003, while the Plaintiff took a mixed burden of KRW 12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. On May 10, 2007, the Plaintiff carried on the business of “D” with the approval to use the instant real estate from the cultural broadcasting company (hereinafter “cultural broadcasting”) in the name of “F”, which was unfairly “F” around March 201, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate until October 201.

The defendant shall share one-half of the real estate in the name of the plaintiff among the real estate in this case.

arrow