(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2020.10.15 2019가단22183

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) 대전지방법원논산지원 2020.10.15 2019가단22183

소유권이전등기

Text

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 1971, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty C (hereinafter “the deceased”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on the grounds of inheritance by a division of agreement as of January 8, 2018.

B. The Plaintiff and the Deceased are siblings, and the Deceased died on November 27, 2017, and the Defendant, his child, inherited.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 198, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 4.5 million with respect to the instant real estate and paid the price to the deceased, but did not receive the transfer of the price. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Deceased did not follow the procedure for the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate even though the Plaintiff and the Deceased paid the price in full to the Deceased, the Plaintiff did not follow the procedure for the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant, the heir of the Deceased, is obligated to perform the procedure.

B. Preliminary claim ① from November 1, 1998, the prescription period for acquisition by possession was completed on November 30, 2018, when 20 years elapsed since the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate as its owner’s intent.

② If the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration against the Defendant is not accepted, the Deceased received KRW 7 million from the Plaintiff as the purchase price for the instant real estate, and thus, the Deceased’s heir as unjust enrichment ought to return it to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 14-1 and No. 14-2 as to the main claim, according to the purport of the whole statement and the pleading, the defendant, against the plaintiff in 2019, 250 gysium 250 gysium and gysium gysium gysium 250 gysium gysium gys

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.08.25 2014가단2916

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.08.31 2017가합100850

-전주지방법원 2019.05.02 2017가합5258

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.17 2017가합519661

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.02.20 2017가합409123