logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.26 2019가단5117449
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 1996, the Defendant completed each registration of preservation of ownership on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on each of the following grounds: (a) the registration of preservation of ownership on each of the instant lands listed in the order (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. Each land of this case was divided from a specific land or combined with another land, thereby reaching the present state.

Land prior to the division of each of the instant lands is five parcels, such as “(1) Gyeonggi-do Briri (hereinafter “Bri”) C, 2D, 3) Gwangju City, Gyeonggi-do Eri (hereinafter “Eri”), F, 4G, and H, and the land prior to such division is indicated as being determined by “I” in the Land Survey Division prepared pursuant to the Chosun Land Survey Ordinance at the time of the Japanese colonial occupation.

The circumstances of the above land and the details of the division and consolidation are as listed below.

[Attachment] The following facts are as follows: (a) 1 Bi C, 338 square meters J (20 March 20, 1953) of the annexed land size of 1 Bi C, 338 square meters and 56m2 K, and (b) 248m2-B-D 325 square meters ( March 20, 1953) were merged with 63m2N (13m2, 13m2) of 25 square meters (13m2, 249 March 29, 2018) of the annexed land size of 151m2 K (23m2, 25m25, 24m25m2, 25m25m2, 37m2, 337m2, 395m2, 25m25m2, 36m25m2, 25m25m2, 36m25m3m2, respectively (3m26, 195m2, etc.)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a co-owner of part of the ownership of each of the lands of this case through inheritance, who is the father of "I", a person in charge of the assessment of each of the lands of this case, and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant is null and void. Thus, the defendant is entitled to preserve the jointly owned properties of this case as

arrow