logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.08 2015나34691
소유권이전등기
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 4, 1976, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 11, 1948 under the name of the Defendant on the ground of the reversion of rights, both of which were located on September 11, 1948.

B. The Plaintiff’s father He (Death on July 28, 1991) constructed and resided on the instant land in 1977, and completed the ownership registration. The Plaintiff had resided in the instant house from June 1, 1978 to June 1, 1978, and according to the respective descriptions of No. 4-1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff was deemed to have resided in Sinnam-gun E, but it appears to be erroneous in the purport of the entry and pleading of No. 6.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), Gap evidence 7 video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s father He purchased the instant land from the deceased D around 1956. ① The Plaintiff was donated the instant land from the deceased C on January 18, 1972, or ② was succeeded to the possession of the instant land before the deceased C on the instant land around 1977, or transferred the ownership of the said building on June 1, 1978, or ④ was succeeded to the property of C on July 28, 1991 and continued to occupy the instant land from each of the above periods (round January 18, 1972, around June 1, 1978, July 28, 1991). As such, the Plaintiff continued to occupy the instant land from each of the above periods (round January 18, 1972, around 197, June 1, 197, July 28, 1991).

B. We examine the judgment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the net C purchased the instant land from the network D around 1956, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land was occupied from January 18, 1972.

In addition, the plaintiff occupied the said new building from the time on June 1, 1978 on the premise that it was donated by the deceased C.

arrow