(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.10.31 2018가단2617

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) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.10.31 2018가단2617

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 9, 1982 and the registration of ownership transfer on July 22, 1982 on July 22, 1982 concerning 1 real estate listed in the separate sheet.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates”. B.

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 5, 1999 for each real estate of this case due to sale on March 4, 199.

C. The defendant is the plaintiff's number of punishment.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. Since the contract of March 4, 199, which was the cause for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate asserted by the plaintiff, was a false conspiracy, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate of this case, which was completed

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration with respect to each real estate of this case.

B. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, the registrant is presumed to have acquired ownership from the former owner through legitimate grounds for registration as well as from the third party. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not receive the purchase price from the Defendant and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the sales contract on March 4, 199, which was the grounds for registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, was a false conspiracy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018. 11. 27. 선고 2017가단135984 판결

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.18 2017가합56230

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.06.15 2015가단78324

-수원지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가합63254

-대전지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단10001