logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.04.01 2013가단822187
소유권확인
Text

1. The defendant Republic of Korea is the defendant B (resident registration number, address: Doz.: Doz.) with the size of 1,326 square meters prior to the Gyeongju-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.

Reasons

1. Part of the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea against Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

The claim for the confirmation of land ownership against the State shall be limited to the cases where the land is unregistered and the registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and where there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting the ownership, there is a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, inasmuch as it is difficult to determine who is the registration titleholder by stating that the land of this case is “B achievement-gun D (T) and the date of birth or the remaining address of the owner, etc.” as to the land of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738, Dec. 2, 194) and the previous copy of land cadastre (No. 2-1, 2-2, etc. of this case), the land of this case shall be deemed as having a benefit to seek confirmation as to the Defendant that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, etc., inasmuch as it is difficult to determine who is the registration titleholder by means of the above copy of land cadastre, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da34390 Decided July 10, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5834 Decided September 13, 2013). Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits is rejected.

B. 1) On August 8, 1912, Defendant B was investigated on August 8, 1912 (large number of August 8, 1912), and the said land is currently unregistered real estate.

B) The instant land has been used as an answer to the Plaintiff’s home, and F and G, a neighboring resident, had been managed by F and G, and had prepared for the description of the Plaintiff’s home as harvested material from the instant land (C).

arrow