logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.18 2017가단32187
소유권이전등기
Text

1. As to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Defendant was dated October 28, 2012 to each of the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact of recognition ① The land Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D was divided into D, E, F, and G on May 3, 1973.

(2) The D previous 35 square meters (this refers to the substitution of land at HH level 105.9 square meters) remaining after the division was made to C on May 19, 1973, and I, around October 1981, transferred ownership to K and L on October 28, 1992, to K and L on August 25, 1994.

After that, on August 21, 2012, the plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/2 shares of the above real estate.

③ Pre-divided E, 35 square meters (which shall be replaced with N.N. 103.4 square meters) was transferred to P on May 18, 1975, to P on September 23, 1979, to Q on October 19, 1981, to R on September 15, 1984, and to S on June 9, 198.

④ The 35 square meters prior to the divided F.M. (35 square meters for T. T. 90 square meters) transferred to U on September 25, 1973, and the ownership was transferred to V on July 18, 1978, W on July 6, 1982, and X on May 9, 1985.

⑤ Prior to divided G 23 pages (hereinafter “instant road”) were used as a road in the shape of land adjacent to the land (i.e., land). On May 19, 1973, the ownership transfer was made to P on September 21, 1978 for the portion of P among them.

6. The Plaintiffs are occupying and using the instant road as a passage from the time of completion of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph (2).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the roads of this case divided into D are deemed to be necessary only for the above two, and 3, and 4, in light of the circumstances revealed in the real estate registration book, 2, and 3, and 4, the Defendant was the land owner.

arrow