logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.21 2016나69194
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written or added as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 6th page of the judgment of the first instance court shall be written in the form of “assumed” and “assumed.”

On the third 20 to 21th 21th 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, the "fluoral fees for confirmation of farmland by geographical owner" shall be applied to "gluoral farmland confirmation table".

The following shall be added to the third page 21 of the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiff alleged that the land of this case was written in 1,100 square meters and 400 square meters prior to the entry of the land at the time of entry in the above prop statement and the prop farmland confirmation schedule in duplicate. One of them is that the land of this case was written in clerical error, but there is no evidence to support that the land of this case was written in clerical error. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, part of the land of 1,819 square meters was classified into G 1,295 square meters and H 439 square meters in the course of farmland distribution, and part of the land of 1,819 square meters in the original FJ No. 2, and 1,295 square meters in the course of farmland distribution and the land of the same lot number was written in the course of entering the compensation part first and the part not compensated. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

(ii)in the fourth three pages of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

The Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was returned to the Plaintiff as it did not have been distributed under the former Farmland Reform Act, but if the land of this case was determined to have not been distributed, or if it did not fall under the land subject to distribution from the beginning, whether such ownership may be returned to D, the land research division, if it was registered as the owner.

arrow