logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단11822
공유물분할에 의한 소유권이전등기절차이행
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Forest land stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “forest land of this case”) is subject to no dispute between the parties concerned, where the plaintiff and the defendant share 3/8 shares, and D share 2/8 shares.

On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer based on an agreement to divide ownership ownership shares in the forest of this case among the forest of this case, on the ground that the part(a) in the claim for the ownership of the forest of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) was agreed by the Defendant and D with the Defendant on March 7, 2016.

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant asserted that: (a) there was an agreement on division, but did not reach an agreement on which portion should be owned by the sole person; (b) the contact with the surveying engineer on March 9, 2016, which was conducted by the Defendant’s agent, and that E, which was the Defendant’s agent, agreed to have the forest of this case owned by the Defendant solely by the Defendant.

Therefore, we examine whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 7, 2016 on the division of co-owned property as above.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7, as of March 7, 2016, Eul and the defendant prepared a power of attorney to the plaintiff to delegate all acts concerning the request for cadastral surveying and the entry into the scene with the delegated person as to the Korea Land Information Corporation as of March 7, 2016. The defendant transferred 1/2 of the survey fees to the plaintiff at that time. The plaintiff applied for partition surveying on March 9, 2016 by indicating the part of the forest of this case as owned by the plaintiff's sole owner. The defendant asserted that there was an agreement on partition of the above contents in the counterclaim as of May 9, 2016, and filed a request for ownership transfer registration with respect to other part than the forest of this case.

However, on the other hand,

arrow