logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.19 2016가합41244
소유권이전등기말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to each land indicated in “the indication of real estate” on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant, the head of the Plaintiff, Busan District Court’s Gangseo-gu Office of Registry on September 15, 1992, was received as No. 2533 on September 15, 1992

8. The registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed.

B. Meanwhile, the registration certificate as to the land of this case held by the defendant is accompanied by the gift certificate dated August 28, 1992, stating that "the land of this case is the ownership of the donor, and the donee agrees to give a gift to the defendant, and the witness accepted it and affixed the signature and seal to prove it," and the seal of the plaintiff's name is affixed to the column of the gift certificate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as a deaf-mute, did not facilitate communication with others and did not read Korean language. The Defendant, without knowing the content of the ownership transfer registration of this case, affixed a seal to the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case, and the Defendant did not have any intent to donate the land of this case to the Defendant, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer of this case is the registration invalidation of the cause of invalidity. Even if the Plaintiff had the intent to donate the land of this case to the Defendant, the registration of ownership transfer of this case was a donation with the condition that the Defendant shall faithfully support the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife, and even from the end of 2015, the Defendant did not pay for hospitalization in the convalescent hospital C, and did not perform his duty to support the Plaintiff from the end of 2015, and thus, the declaration of intent

3. Therefore, the defendant.

arrow