logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2015나34061
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The land survey register prepared in the Japanese colonial era shall state 879 square meters of land land cadastre (Evidence A2 and Evidence A No. 3-1) with the domicile of Bocheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do J (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) and the following Ma:

In light of the facts recognized in this paragraph, the above T is presumed to be a clerical error in the E.

state that the assessment has been made.

D Forest land of 879 was divided into 200 square meters and 679 square meters (hereinafter “land before the instant subdivision”) before the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31, Jun. 21, 1949; Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”).

On November 11, 1951, the defendant completed registration of initial ownership relating to the land of this case before its subdivision, as stated in the purport of the claim.

After the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, the land prior to the instant division was divided into 234 square meters and 445 square meters prior to F on January 30, 193 (1960), which was short-term 4293 (hereinafter “instant land”). The entire 445 square meters prior to G was 1,471 square meters prior to G in Echeon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

The E-Ba’s successor asserted that his preference was the assessment of the instant land, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership stated in the purport of the claim by Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan326884. However, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim against the Defendant of V on July 7, 2009 on the ground that E had already disposed of the instant land before the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, and the said judgment was dismissed on November 13, 2009 and became final and conclusive around that time.

On October 10, 1989, I had married with M on a short-term 4255(1922) and had N,O, P, Q, and R including the plaintiffs as children, and died on April 30, 1989.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s 1-2, A’s 2-2, A’s 3-1-3, and A’s 3-3.

arrow