logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단5311274
소유권보존등기말소
Text

1. The Defendant has column the details of registration of initial ownership of each land listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land survey book prepared in the Japanese colonial era is that C(C) located in Echeon-gun B was assessed on July 5, 1912 at KRW 196, E 150, F 430, G 224.

B. The land of the above four parcels was divided into eight parcels as shown in the attached Form, and the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of each land as shown in the attached Form.

C. On December 21, 1935, the Plaintiff’s fleet H (H) died, and on December 21, 1935, the head of South-Nam I inherited family and inherited property.

I died on November 7, 1991, and the plaintiff is one of the successors of I as an infant.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3-3, fact-finding, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Any person who is listed in the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division shall be presumed to have been identified as the owner of the land inasmuch as there is no reflective evidence such as any change in the contents of the situation by the adjudication, and the person who is under the condition of the land shall acquire the land at the

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686 delivered on September 8, 1998, etc.). The presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership on land is invalid, unless the person to whom the relevant land was assessed is broken and the registered titleholder fails to specifically assert or prove the fact of acquisition by succession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43417 delivered on May 26, 2005, etc.). B.

In addition to the above facts of recognition, considering the following circumstances revealed through the inquiry of the fact about Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Leecheon-si market, it is reasonable to see Eul, who is a circumstance title, as the plaintiff's protocol.

The names of C and the Plaintiff’s father, who are the circumstantial names, are the same, and there is no same Dong name among those who have a permanent domicile in theJ of Leecheon-si.

C, a well-known person, was residing in Echeon-gun B in Gyeonggi-do at the time of the circumstance.

H L, the father of H H H, is L from Ma on October 1, 1941.

arrow