logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2014.09.24 2012가합730
신탁해지에 인한 소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. With respect to the plaintiff B,

A. Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, Q, S, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AAB, AC, AC, AD, and AD.

Reasons

1. Plaintiff B’s claim against Defendant BB, BC, Reference Savings Bank, BD, ASEAN, Incorporated Agricultural Company, Korea, and Ansan City

A. The plaintiff BE of the plaintiff B's argument (hereinafter "the plaintiff B") (hereinafter "the non-party clan") is only different from the name of the H in which the "BG" is a joint vessel from that of the BFC 17 years old, but does not lose it, and therefore, the non-party clan has registered ownership transfer in the name of the non-party clan for each real estate listed in the attached real estate list.

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party clan is null and void, and accordingly the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party clan is also null and void, the registration of transfer of ownership in the vicinity of the defendant BB, BC, and the savings bank, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the defendant BD and the agricultural company are also null and void. The defendant Republic of Korea and Ansan-si, which completed the seizure registration of the ownership in the defendant BD,

B. The judgment of the non-party 5's assertion that the non-party 5's clan is a member of the clan, although there are evidence No. 4 and No. 10-1 (the decision of each case that the non-party 5's clan became the plaintiff or the defendant) as well as evidence that the non-party 5's claim against the above defendants among the plaintiff 2's written evidence on the premise that the non-party 5's claim against the above defendants cannot be viewed as a non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party

Defendant BB, BD, and ASEAN Company did not submit a reply and other preparatory documents, and did not clearly dispute the facts of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the Plaintiff’s question. However, the confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only to the other party’s actual assertion, and the legal principle on facts.

arrow