beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 1, 1983 on each of the instant real estates 1/2 of each of the instant real estates due to sale.
B. On April 24, 192, as to C’s one-half portion of the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future E due to inheritance due to consultation or division on April 24, 1992. On July 17, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to F’s share 1/12, G’s share, 1/12 shares, 1/12 shares to H, and 3/12 shares to the Defendant.
C. Meanwhile, on September 2, 2008, D’s 1/2 shares in the instant real estate were transferred to F on the ground of donation on September 2, 2008 to F as to 1/12 shares, G 1/12 shares, H 1/12 shares, and 3/12 shares to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff maintained de facto marital relations with D from October 15, 1999 to October 2014, when D died. Around March 5, 2008, the Plaintiff sold 10397m2 (the land before the division of the instant real estate) to the Plaintiff in Yangju-si, Yangju-si, and promised to sell KRW 200 million out of the purchase price. However, the Plaintiff, who did not sell the said forest, promised again to transfer 3/12 of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
However, since the defendant was the defendant at the time of transferring the above shares to the plaintiff and the defendant was well aware of the same fact, the defendant is obligated to transfer the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to the 3/12 shares of the real estate of this case.
(The plaintiff does not clarify what the specific grounds for the claim seeking the transfer of ownership. (b)
Judgment
Whether the Plaintiff was in a de facto marital relationship with D for a considerable period, whether D promised to sell the forest owned by it to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, D’s payment of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.