logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2019.08.29 2019나11416
소유권이전등기
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant D is dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant B.

Reasons

1. In relation to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 at the court of first instance, the plaintiff filed a claim with the plaintiff for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the 1/4 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 at the court of first instance, and with respect to Defendant D, the plaintiff filed a claim with the plaintiff for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the 1/4 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 at the court of first instance

The plaintiff appealed only for the remaining parts except each of the above claims, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to E was separated and finalized.

In addition, since the Plaintiff did not appeal the part of the judgment on the real estate listed in the attached Table 3 List against Defendant D, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims against the Defendants on each real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. 1) Defendant D’s claim against Defendant D’s assertion against the Plaintiff is a lawsuit claiming the transfer registration against Defendant D to preserve the Plaintiff’s share in the inheritance of each of the instant land. Thus, it constitutes a claim for the restoration of inherited property. However, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff’s share in inheritance of each of the instant land was infringed at the latest on April 8, 2009, and thus, the claim in this case is unlawful because the period of exclusion has elapsed three years from the date the Plaintiff became aware of the infringement of inheritance rights. 2) On the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim for the recovery of inheritance was genuine, asserting that the ownership of inherited property, such as ownership or ownership due to the inheritance, and asserting that the ownership belongs to property rights, such as ownership or ownership due to the inheritance, and acquisition of a new interest, or establishment of a new interest, from the named heir or the third party.

arrow