logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.10 2016가합50616
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a person who occupies each of the instant lands, and the Defendant is the owner of each of the instant lands.

B. From around 1965, the Plaintiff developed each of the instant land as at the end of reclamation and management in several years, and occupied each of the instant land for at least 50 years, by forming the land as at the end of reclamation and management.

On May 7, 1998, the defendant transferred the land owned by the defendant, which is the reclaimed land of public waters, to the local government concerned without compensation, and then the local government revised the Enforcement Decree of the Local Autonomy Act that the local government would sell the land transferred to the occupant, heir or general successor of the reclaimed land by December 31, 1989.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant implemented a procedure of gratuitous concession of public waters reclaimed land to the relevant local government, and the Cheongjin-gun Office, the competent military authority of each of the instant lands, implemented the procedure of selling public waters reclaimed land to the occupant of reclaimed land. However, in the process, the Plaintiff was unable to purchase each of the instant land at a low price at the time on the wind, which was omitted from the eligibility for the sale of reclaimed land by the public official’s negligence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the instant land based on sale, but the difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the purchase price was not narrow.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff occupied and used each of the instant land by taking effort and cost for a period of up to a hundred million won, and the fact that the Plaintiff intended to purchase each of the instant land is recognized.

However, the sale of each land of this case owned by the defendant is possible to the extent permitted by relevant laws and regulations.

arrow