logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.07 2016가단22815
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. Of each land listed in the separate list C, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the Defendant’s future, as stated in the Special Act on Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of each Real Estate on December 10, 1974 (amended by Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977; hereinafter “Special Act”) for each land listed in paragraphs 1, 2, and 6 of the above list on January 26, 1974 with respect to the land listed in Articles 3, 3, and 6 of the above list due to sale and purchase on December 10, 1973.

B. C died in around 1966, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are children of C.

2. The summary of the cause of the claim assumes that the Defendant purchased each of the lands listed in the separate sheet at the time of the enforcement of the Special Assistance Act, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as above under the Special Assistance Act. The Defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above registrations, invalid.

3. The presumption of ownership transfer registration shall not be reversed unless it is proved that the registration completed under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Grounds for Claims is presumed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of ownership transfer registration shall not be reversed unless it is proven that the letter of guarantee and confirmation prescribed by the Act on Special Cases is false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due to other reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19886, Jun. 27, 2003). Whether the Defendant used a false or forged letter of guarantee or confirmation in the process of completing the registration of ownership transfer as above with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet as above, and whether the registration was not duly completed is insufficient to acknowledge the registration, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

If the defendant's purchase takes place more than the date of the death of the seller, who is a registered titleholder, the letter of guarantee and the certificate in lieu of the certificate are prepared falsely.

arrow