(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.11.20 2018나10471

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) 청주지방법원 2019.11.20 2018나10471

토지인도

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

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion emphasized or added by the defendant in this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion of further determination is as follows: “The instant donation” between C and the Plaintiff on the instant land between March 27, 2018.

The plaintiff is not the owner of the land of this case, and there is no right to claim the delivery of the land of this case and the removal of the building of this case against the defendant.

In addition, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant land from C, the former owner of the instant land, and newly constructed the instant building; (b) requested C to remove the instant building; and (c) the Defendant donated the instant land to C, who was in the Republic of Korea, to C, for the purpose of avoiding the claim for purchase of the ground property; and (d) the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to the Defendant and the claim for removal of the instant building against the Defendant constitutes an abuse of

Since the registration of real estate completed through legitimate procedures shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the party who asserts that the registration was unlawful, is responsible for the reversal of the presumption. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is presumed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the land of this case through the donation of this case, and that the donation of this case should be invalidated or revoked by a false declaration of conspiracy only with the evidence submitted, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the defendant's argument that the gift of this case should be invalidated or revoked by a false declaration of conspiracy cannot be accepted

In addition, Gap evidence No. 4 and the whole pleadings are recorded.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.09.21 2016나50067

-대법원 2016. 08. 18. 선고 2016다224220 판결

-대법원 2007. 10. 26. 선고 2007두14350 판결

-서울고등법원 2007. 06. 13. 선고 2006누24475 판결

-창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2019나54785