(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단26625

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) 광주지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단26625

소유권이전등기말소등기청구

Text

1. The defendant,

A. With respect to 3/60 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Form 1 to Plaintiff A, 11.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the siblings, and D is the female son of Plaintiff B, and the Plaintiff is the mother of Plaintiff A. The Defendant is the father E.

B. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B were each owners of the real estate listed in the Disposition No. 1-A, and the real estate listed in the Disposition No. 1-B (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiffs, registration of ownership transfer was made on May 19, 201 on the ground of sale and purchase on February 16, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they held the title trust of the real estate of this case to D, and D held the title trust of the real estate of this case to the defendant. Since the title trust agreement becomes null and void, the registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate of this case in the name of the defendant is invalid, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation

B. The Defendant’s assertion D did not have received the title trust of the instant real estate from the Plaintiffs, and D paid the Plaintiff KRW 4,500,000 to the Plaintiff and purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiffs.

D did not have title trust the instant real estate to the Defendant, and donated the instant real estate to the Defendant.

3. The defendant's defense prior to the merits does not have any fact to delegate the lawsuit of this case to the plaintiffs' attorney, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiffs' attorney without the power of attorney is unlawful. However, in full view of the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff A as a result of the examination of the plaintiff A, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs' attorney delegated the lawsuit of this case

4. The owner of the property generally held as to the merits.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.01.10 2016가단53673

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.08.20 2014가합1644 (1)

-광주지방법원 2015.08.21 2015나2023

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.05.30 2015가단1323

-부산고등법원 2016.08.25 2016나51941