(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단30562

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단30562

협의분할이행

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed-si)’s assertion is jointly owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) and the Defendants. The Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendants agreed to divide the instant forest as indicated in the separate sheet around May 10, 2014. As such, the Defendants are obliged to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to each share in the separate sheet among the instant forest as indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, etc. on May 10, 2014.

2. According to the statement No. 1-1 of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff et al. and the defendants can recognize the fact that they share the forest land of this case.

However, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendants agreed to divide the forest of this case with the Defendants as shown in the separate sheet, but only sought the Defendants’ implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the shares of the Defendants out of the forest of this case.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to specify the forest of this case as divided ownership as indicated in the separate sheet, and only sought only the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the Defendants’ share in the forest of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case in itself is without merit.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2, the plaintiff et al. may recognize the fact that the plaintiff et al. agreed to divide the forest of this case as shown in the separate sheet around May 2, 2015. However, the above agreement is merely reached between the plaintiff et al., and there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the plaintiff et al. and the defendants to divide the forest of this case as shown in the separate sheet. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that there was an agreement to divide the forest of

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.03.27 2019가단2433

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2014가단86019

-청주지방법원 2018.07.05 2017가단13373

-대전지방법원 2020.11.12 2018나116185

-창원지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단108857