(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.11.28 2014가단28384

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.11.28 2014가단28384

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) with respect to the area of 3,570 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”) prior to Pakistan-si based on the “Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land in Diplomatic Areas (Act No. 4042, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”)” on November 7, 1991, the registration office of Goyang-gu District District Court of Suyang-si, which received on November 7, 1991.

B. Around May 24, 1973, Nonparty D, the father of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), died, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) jointly succeeded to the deceased’s property at a reasonable ratio of inheritance shares.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The real estate of this case was originally owned by the deceased, and the defendant completed the preservation registration of this case in accordance with the Act on Special Measures on the Basis of False Guarantee, etc. Therefore, the registration of this case shall be deemed null and void. (2) Therefore, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of this case, which is null and void, to the plaintiff (appointed party), who is the co-inheritors of the deceased, who is a legitimate owner of the real estate of this case.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim should be deemed as exercising the right of exclusion of disturbance based on the ownership against the Defendant on the premise that the deceased acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by the deceased (appointed party). Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge it even in full view of the circumstances asserted by the deceased or the Plaintiff (appointed party) first of all, based on the evidence presented by the health team and the Plaintiff (appointed party), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

【Plaintiff (Appointed Party)”

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.10.22 2019가합66

-의정부지방법원 2020.09.16 2019가단108503

-서울서부지방법원 2020.02.05 2019가합33067

-인천지방법원 2018.01.16 2017가합1154