logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.03.27 2014나10805
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Defendant’s share of the above land on the ground that C had been bequeathed from Doz. D & 176 square meters for a reason that C had been bequeathed from Doz., and filed a registration of ownership transfer with the primary claim. The first instance court dismissed the primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

Since the defendant only appealed against this issue, the subject of this Court's trial is limited to the above preliminary claim.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the obligation to transfer ownership, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership on May 25, 2004, the deceased’s death on the part of 1/5 shares of the land in the name of the Defendant among the land in this case, to C who received a specific legacy from the deceased.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant appointed an attorney at will and filed the instant lawsuit under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s attorney’s litigation act is invalid as an act by the unauthorized Agent. The Plaintiff’s litigation act may be acknowledged as being by appointing an attorney at his own will and bring the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the foregoing assertion is not accepted. 2) The period of exclusion period and the Defendant did not have any other inherited property except the instant land at the time of the deceased’s death, and thus, the legacy of the instant land constitutes a comprehensive legacy rather than a specific legacy, and the provision on the limitation period of the claim for recovery of inheritance is applied mutatis mutandis to a comprehensive legacy. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of G share ownership in the name of the instant land.

arrow