logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.21 2017나56797
소유권보존등기말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim brought at the trial shall be dismissed; and

3...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the co-ownership right holder, who is the heir of the network B, who acquired by prescription the area of 390 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si, which was owned by D (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and primarily seeks cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the claim against the Defendant, and at the same time seek confirmation on the ownership of the network B on the said real estate. Even if the instant real estate is not owned by the network B, the Plaintiff seeks for registration of ownership preservation against the Defendant by subrogation, who is the true owner, in lieu of D, in advance.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the subject of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership is the current rights or legal relations, and barring any special circumstance, it is not recognized that the previous rights or legal relations exist, barring any special circumstance.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). Meanwhile, a lawsuit for confirmation does not necessarily have a legal relationship between the parties, but may be subject to the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between a third party. However, in order for the confirmation of the legal relationship to have the benefit of confirmation, the legal relationship must cause existing danger and apprehension in the rights or legal status of the complaining party, and it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by a judgment for confirmation to eliminate risks and apprehensions, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46829, 46836, May 27, 2004, etc.). In light of these legal principles, the part of the lawsuit in this case against the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff’s ownership confirmation against the Defendant constitutes not only the existence of past rights or legal relations, but also the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party, and the Plaintiff directly or in subrogation of the genuine owner.

arrow