logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나63906
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On August 31, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 55 square meters in Jeonnam-gun E-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “Before subdivision”), and owned it, and transferred it to F on August 23, 1984.

The above land was successively transferred to G and H on October 30, 2012, to G and H on July 21, 2015, to the Defendant on June 27, 2016, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on July 5, 2016.

The above land was divided into E, 439.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and D 171.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on March 31, 2017 through the cadastral resurvey.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, sold only the adjoining land of this case to F on August 23, 1984. The registration of ownership transfer for the entire land of this case, including the land of this case, was completed.

Since the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for which the plaintiff did not sell is invalid, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for the restoration of real name.

Judgment

In a case where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land are specified as this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership is determined by the boundary on the public record regardless of the actual boundary. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, such as the transaction party’s intention not to trade the land whose ownership scope has been determined by the cadastral record but to trade the land at the actual boundary, the transaction of the land shall be deemed to be subject to a sale of the land determined by the boundary and cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary, and Supreme Court Decision 90Da12977 Decided February 22, 191, etc.

arrow