logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.20 2015가단5326689
소유권보존등기말소청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Attached Table 1. For the land listed in Attached Table 1., Suwon District Court Woo branch on March 30, 1999

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The land described in the attached Table 1 of the facts of recognition [Ground: Each entry of Gap 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings] is as follows: the land described in the attached Table 1 of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the land shown in the field B of Female-gun in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the "

A) The land that is divided and the administrative district of which is changed is the land that is restored from the land survey division and the administrative district is changed. C’s land survey division is written on June 8, 1912 (No. 45 years old) that is located in the “D,” and the land indicated in the attached Table 2 was divided into 1,313 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Gdo 149 square meters and H 26 square meters, and the administrative district is changed.

The I Land Survey Board states that the address of the J, “D,” and the land of this case was assessed around May 2, 1912 (Seoul High Court Decision 45 years).

3) 피고는 별지목록 1.기재 토지에 관하여 수원지방법원 여주지원 1999. 3. 30. 접수 제8107호로, 2기재 토지 중 별지도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 ㈎부분 410㎡에 관하여 수원지방법원 여주지원 1996. 7. 19. 접수 제15510호로 각 소유권보존등기를 마쳤다. 4) 원고의 선대 K이 사망하여, 호주상속인인 장남 L가 K의 재산을 단독 상속하였다가 L가 1920. 12. 27. 사망하여 장남 M가 L의 재산을 상속하였고, M가 1942. 1. 30. 사망하여 장남 N이 M의 재산을 상속하였으며, N이 1962. 3. 5. 사망하여 그의 처인 O과 아들인 원고가 N의 재산을 O 1/4, 원고 3/4의 각 상속지분에 따라 상속하였다.

B. The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership on one parcel of land is broken if it is revealed that there is another person to whom the assessment was made, and the registration is invalid as a cause is, unless the registered titleholder specifically proves that the acquisition by succession was acquired by succession.

The plaintiff's prior owner K is found to be one-way land, and the network L is two-way land.

arrow