logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.19 2017가단50391
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's ground of claim

A. around 1918, the Plaintiff acquired the instant forest land in its original form under the name of Nonparty F, a final cause, and thus, the Plaintiff and the F were in a title trust relationship.

B. Around 1990, Nonparty A left a clan work. Nonparty G sought E around 1991 and recommended Nonparty G to sell the forest land of this case unregistered at the time.

E sold the instant forest land to the Defendant, Nonparty H, I, and J, the wife of G around December 27, 1990.

The sale contract of December 27, 1990 is called ‘the sale contract of December 27, 199

(3) On May 7, 191, G filed a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership of the instant forest land with the Suwon District Court 91No4900 by borrowing the name of the F’s heir, E, etc. The above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff, including E, on May 7, 1991, and accordingly, registration of ownership preservation has been completed for each share in the name of E, etc. around December 7, 1991. D. The remaining 212/224 shares remaining after the sale and inheritance, etc. of the instant forest land were transferred to the Defendant. The instant forest land was owned by the Plaintiff clan, but G and the Defendant purchased the instant forest land, which is the Plaintiff’s clan’s trust property, by actively soliciting the sale of the instant forest land, which is the Plaintiff’s clan’s trust property, and thus, the sale contract was null and void as a juristic act, which is an anti-social act on December 27, 199.

G. If the Plaintiff’s original acquisition is not recognized, it is sought to confirm the invalidity of the sales contract between the Defendant and E on December 27, 1990.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s principal safety defense shall be made to the effect that the Plaintiff’s clans do not have any party capacity.

The plaintiff is admitted as evidence to the substance and activities of the plaintiff clan.

arrow