logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.10.11 2016가단10777
소유권이전등기
Text

1. As to one half of each of the real estates listed in the Schedule 1 annexed hereto:

A. Defendant C is against Defendant B.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Regarding E forest land: F of the Gyeongbuk-gun (current, Daegu, E; hereinafter referred to as “E”)

(A) The forest land of 17900 square meters is the increased portion of G (G, Defendant B, and D) on April 27, 1917.

(2) As to the forest land E, registration of preservation of ownership was completed with the shares of Defendant B B 1/3, Defendant D 1/3, and H 1/3 in accordance with Act No. 3094 on August 27, 1981.

3) On November 3, 1992, H’s above shares were transferred to Defendant B and D each 0.5/3 shares, respectively. 4) on September 10, 2015, in E forest land, 84 square meters of I forest land were divided.

5) On March 22, 2016, the respective shares of Defendant B in E forest and I forest are the shares of Defendant C (Defendant B’s wife) on the grounds of donation on the same day.

(6) I forest land was transferred to the Republic of Korea on February 28, 2017, and was expropriated in the Republic of Korea on March 3, 2017, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Republic of Korea on March 3, 2017, and Defendant C and D received KRW 1,482,60, respectively as compensation for expropriation.

B. As to the forest and field J, 1) K in the Gyeongbuk-gun of the Gyeongbuk-do (current Daegu-gun of the J, hereinafter “J”).

(2) On April 1, 1994, J forest was transferred to Defendant C on the ground of donation on the same day on March 18, 2016.

3) On November 16, 2016, J Forest was divided into 310 square meters of J Forest, 1420 square meters of L Forest, and 33 square meters of forest land. On October 31, 2017, L Forest was expropriated in the Republic of Korea on October 31, 2017, and the compensation for expropriation was KRW 35,85,000. [Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 17] The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.

2. The Defendants asserted that “the Plaintiff did not have any substance as a clan” on the previous defense of the merit.

Since a family member is a natural development group of the clan comprised of men and women of age or older among the descendants of a common ancestor, it does not require any special organizational act for its establishment, but it is the grave of the common ancestor.

arrow