(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.17 2014가합40157

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.17 2014가합40157

소유권보존등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, and 15-1, 2, 18, and 23, with a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings.

A. On April 28, 2004, Nonparty C leased from the Defendant a lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million, monthly rent of KRW 14 million, and June 20, 2004, the lease period of KRW 14 million from June 19, 2009, the lease period of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the purpose of operating the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance business.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement". (b)

On the other hand, on May 29, 2004, C established the Plaintiff for the purpose of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance business (the trade name was changed from E to F Co., Ltd. on August 23, 2004 at the time of its establishment to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2010). The joint representative director or sole representative director was at the present time.

C. After entering into the instant lease agreement, C obtained the Defendant’s consent on the removal of the instant building and the construction of the building on the instant land, and obtained the building permit under the Defendant’s name.

Afterward, the Plaintiff completed the building (hereinafter “instant building”) around December 16, 2004 by carrying out the removal and new construction work at the expense. D.

The registration of preservation of ownership of the instant building was completed on January 19, 2005 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 4138, Jan. 19, 2005

(hereinafter “instant registration of ownership preservation”) 2. argument and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) newly built and acquired the instant building at the expense of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name should be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause. 2) The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant building in accordance with the initial agreement between the Defendant original Defendant and the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.05.19 2015나2022616

-수원지방법원 2014.09.25 2014구합1599

-서울고등법원 2015.01.08 2014나2012445

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.23 2020나26262

-인천지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가합56345