logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2017.09.22 2016가단4609
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a non-corporate body consisting of residents living in the Yacheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. 2) The Defendant is a resident living in the Yari-gun, and is a member of the Plaintiff.

B. On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Cheongju District Court Branching the Republic of Korea seeking confirmation of ownership against Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branching 201Gadan2516. In the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the “A” recorded as the title holder of the instant graveyard refers to the Plaintiff, which is a natural father, and at the time, the Defendant participated in the said lawsuit as the Plaintiff’s “representative” as the title holder. (ii) On November 16, 2012, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 12, 2012.

(2) As to the Defendant’s qualification (hereinafter “related case”), the lower court determined as follows: “At the time, the Defendant called a general meeting to the head of the village, and the general meeting of residents held on October 6, 2012, a resolution was made to appoint the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s representative with the attendance of a majority of the heads of households constituting the village and the consent of all those present at the general meeting of residents.”

C. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff registered the preservation of ownership of the instant cemetery in the name of the Plaintiff. D.

On September 5, 2013, the Development Committee, which belongs to the Plaintiff, held a meeting on the method of dealing with the instant cemetery, etc., and made a decision as follows in the attendance of four members of the Defendant and the Development Committee D, etc.

Since the cemetery of this case is a dead site and a grave of 74 or more times exists, it was not traded more than 10 times even though it was sold or advertised.

The defendant who won the relevant case by force sells the cemetery of this case to the defendant who won the case as the officially announced value.

arrow