(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.01 2016가단217809

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) 대전지방법원 2017.02.01 2016가단217809

소유권확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. According to the certified copy of the real estate register of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), after the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 4, 1968, “A” having a domicile in “Seoul-gun,” the above A has been registered as its owner until now. The land cadastre of the said real estate is “C” since November 4, 1968, and the registration number is “D” with “A” with the registration number indicated as its owner, either there is no dispute between the parties concerned or by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant real estate, and around November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff intended to donate the said real estate to Nonparty E, his/her father, and complete the registration of ownership transfer, but the Plaintiff’s application for registration was rejected on the ground that the address indicated in the Plaintiff’s certified copy of the resident registration does not coincide with that

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant, which judged on the interest of confirmation, shall make a defense prior to the merits that the lawsuit of this case has no interest in confirmation.

The claim for the confirmation of land ownership against the State shall be limited to the cases where the land is unregistered and the registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and where there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting the ownership, there is a benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009). According to the above facts of recognition, the real estate of this case is not in the state of non-registration, and the owner of the real estate register and land cadastre thereof is indicated as “A”, and the defendant does not dispute the ownership of the real estate of this case by denying the ownership of A, a registered titleholder of the real estate of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2009다48633 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.01.28 2014나106135

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.09.06 2019가합101048

-대구지방법원안동지원 2016.05.18 2016가단424

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.10.07 2015가단3927

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.26 2018가단50540