(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018나22246

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018나22246

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the court's reasoning are as follows: "Defendant church" in the judgment of the court of first instance 2, 6, 16, 17, 17, 17, 3, 3, 3, 13, 3, 13, 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), 7, 1, and 2, 420, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, 3, 420, 13, 3, 13, 3, 13, 3, 3, 1, and 7, 3, 3, 1, and 7, 3, 1, and 1, 7, 1, and 2, 420, as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Claims concerning the cause of claims;

A. The new building of this case was sold in lots to the deceased and the Defendant, a partner of the instant reconstruction project, due to the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive assertion. Of the previous building of this case, the part to be allocated to the Defendant was assigned to the Defendant by allocating approximately 530 square meters to the deceased and approximately 195 square meters to the Defendant, even though the size of the ownership of the deceased and the size of the ownership of the Defendant should be allocated to approximately 195 square meters corresponding thereto.

The Defendant, by recognizing this fact on October 31, 2008, set up the instant resolution and agreed to first return the ownership of the first floor of the new building of this case (attached Form No. 1; hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the deceased.

As a property inheritor of the deceased, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of each procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on an agreement on October 31, 2008 on the transfer registration of ownership as of October 31, 2008, on the part of the Plaintiff’s share in the Plaintiff’s inheritance among the transferred real estate of this case, to the Defendant.

B. The reasoning for this part of the Defendant’s assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from April 6 to 11). Therefore, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s primary claim is true.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.07.17 2019나12334

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.18 2016가합106788 (1)

-서울고등법원 2019.01.31 2018나2033815

-서울고등법원 2019.07.12 2019누32933

-부산고등법원(창원) 2017.06.15 2017나20152