logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.02.26 2014다61821
소유지분권이전등기말소등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where a transfer registration of ownership is made with respect to the first ground for appeal, the registrant of the registration is presumed to have acquired ownership not only for a third party but also for a former owner through legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, in order for the plaintiffs to deny it and to seek the cancellation of the transfer of ownership by claiming the invalidity of grounds for registration, the fact that the grounds for invalidation are asserted and proved.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 Decided March 13, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215, Mar. 13, 2014). Where registration of transfer of ownership was made by an act of act involving a third party, not by the direct act of the former registered titleholder, and where the former registered titleholder asserts that he/she was granted the right of representation from the former registered titleholder, the registration of the former registered titleholder shall be presumed to have been duly made. Thus, the former registered titleholder seeking cancellation of the registration on the ground that the said

or a third party shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of registration documents of the former titleholder, such as forging registration documents of the former titleholder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da41010 Decided May 9, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 97Da416 Decided April 8, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10386 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the presumption of ownership transfer registration of the instant case cannot be deemed to have been broken, on the grounds that there was no evidence to support that the network H concluded a sales contract for the instant forest without any delegation or consent of other co-inheritors, or forged the registration documents, such as the instant sales certificate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant.

arrow