logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.06.30 2015가단4982
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

B. Since May 17, 1991, the Defendant’s father D had been registered as of May 17, 1991, the previous 114m2 in Sacheon-si. However, D on September 7, 2002, the said year as to the Defendant’s land.

9.4. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of donation.

The father E died on April 20, 1993.

As shown in the attached Form 28, 29, 30, 31, and 28, the Plaintiff shall have written the E funeral in the part of the “three-dimensional” on the ship.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the entire argument is asserted by the plaintiff. On November 11, 1991, the plaintiff's additional appraisal Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 19 of the attached sheet No. 156 of "bbb" in the line as shown in the attached sheet No. 19, 20,00 won among the 19, 20, 250,000 square meters from the defendant's father D's father's husband's Do, Sacheon-si's 1144 square meters.

The plaintiff received a donation from E in 1990 due to the 1990s.

Since the Defendant acquired the obligation to execute the instant sales contract from D, the Defendant is obligated to complete the registration of transfer of ownership for sale on the part of the BB.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff, around April 20, 1993, used a tomb in part E in the second part and occupied and managed it in good faith and in good faith. The Plaintiff acquired by prescription the part on November 12, 201 (which appears to have been wrong on November 11, 201), which was 20 years from November 11, 1991, the date on which the instant sales contract was made.)

Judgment

On the other hand, a sales contract was entered into between E and D with respect to the primary claim, even if the sales contract of this case was entered into between E and D.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant assumed the obligation to perform the above sales contract from D.

Preliminary claim Nos. 7 and 8.

arrow