logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.18 2019나50792
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, given that it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion added as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, this is acceptable as it is by the main text

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that F purchased the instant real estate from O, the Dong N, but in light of the fact that F claimed that F purchased the instant real estate from E while filing a lawsuit that serves as the basis of the instant judgment, and that F did not submit a sales contract orO’s recognition, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the said assertion.

Even if F purchased fromO, since the nominal owner of the instant real estate at the time of sale is E, F knowingly purchased the instant real estate with the knowledge that it did not have the right to dispose of it, the presumption of the F and its heir's independent possession was reversed.

B. In light of the fact that the current Civil Act adopts the form of the public announcement of the acquisition, loss, and transfer of real right to real estate by juristic act only when it takes effect, despite the fact that the registration takes effect, and that the practice of real estate transaction pursuant to the former Civil Act, which has adopted the principle of intent for a considerable period of time after the enforcement of the current Civil Act, remains, even after the enforcement of the current Civil Act, if the purchaser of the land acquires possession of the land for the purpose of use by the sale and purchase contract, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchaser proves that he/she obtained possession on the basis of the title that he/she did not have the intention to own the right of possession by nature, even if it constitutes the sale of the land of another person, and that he/she purchased the land with the knowledge that

arrow