logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단513862
소유권이전등기절차 이행의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land (the lot number before the registration conversion is referred to as the “Gamejin-gun,” is registered in the Land Survey Division as the owner, and the Deceased opened to E on July 29, 1941 and completed registration preservation on June 12, 1942 (Fire 17 years).

On the same day, F, an incorporated foundation, (hereinafter referred to as the "Association of this case") completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case due to sale in order to establish a juvenile reformatory in G.

Since August 15, 1945, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case due to donation.

On October 30, 1956, the deceased, who was the plaintiff's fleet, died on October 30, 1956, and He inherited the deceased's property solely. On August 4, 1961, H died and jointly inherited the property of the plaintiff, J, K, and L, who was the wife I and his children. On April 26, 1996, the plaintiff, J, K, and L jointly inherited the property of the plaintiff, J, K, and L.

Since then, the plaintiff, J, K, and L agreed on the division of inherited property that the plaintiff would only inherit the land of this case.

The instant land was owned by the deceased. On January 23, 1942, when Japan formed the instant association on January 23, 1942, and removed the instant land without compensation in order to establish the Juvenile Protection Center, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Association of this case is invalid. Since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, who donated the instant land from the Association of this case, is also invalidated, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Association of this case is also invalidated. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the instant

2. Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made, not only the third party, but also the former owner shall be presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate grounds for registration, and Supreme Court Decision 81Da791 Decided June 22, 1982, etc.

arrow