(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2016가단12652

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) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2016가단12652

소유권말소등기

Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 29, 2002, and the Plaintiffs, F, and G, who were their children, succeeded to one-five shares of the deceased’s property, respectively.

The defendant is F's wife.

B. The real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) was originally owned by the deceased. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 24, 2002 regarding the apartment of this case on the ground of the donation on October 22, 2002 (hereinafter “the donation of this case”).

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion was made on September 26, 2002 by a brain stroke and had no mental capacity at the time of the donation of this case. Thus, the registration of this case is a registration of invalidity of cause made by the defendant under a forged gift contract, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased's property.

3. Determination

A. Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, the grounds for invalidation should be asserted and proved in the grounds for appeal.

In cases where a third party is involved in an act of disposal rather than by the direct act of disposal of the former registered titleholder, the registration of the former owner shall be presumed lawful even if the third party is the agent of the former registered titleholder. As such, the former owner was not entitled to represent the third party, i.e., the former owner, who requested the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is void.

The registration procedure, such as forging the registration document of the former owner, shall be run lawfully.

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2015.07.01 2014나3673

-대법원 1997. 4. 8. 선고 97다416 판결

-창원지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가단8700

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.09 2017가단5092096

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.08.11 2014나2164