logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.09.13 2016나54593
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (Act No. 1657, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) provides that the scope of application of the said Act shall be construed as “it is not registered as a general farmland, or it is not changed in the ownership on the land register between July 28, 1953 and the date of application for registration under this Act.” However, the scope of application of the said Act shall be construed as “The land before division is divided, or there is no change in the ownership on the land register.”

A) The scope of the Act does not include the scope of the Act on Special Measures. Nevertheless, the deceased J completed the registration of ownership preservation under the Act on Special Measures for the said land, and the Defendant G completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by agreement division with respect to each land listed in Schedule 2, 4, and 6, which is divided from the said land. The registration in the name of the deceased and the Defendant G should be cancelled as a registration of invalidity of cause for which the registration has been illegally made. (ii) In the event the registration of ownership preservation has been completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Determination, the registration is presumed to have been completed lawfully in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu994, Feb. 28, 1984). In order to reverse such presumption, the person asserting that the registration procedure was not lawfully

In addition, from July 28, 1953 to July 28, 1953, there was a change in ownership in the register between the registration of preservation of ownership of the deceased and the registration of preservation of ownership.

"A" is to recognize only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7.

arrow