logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.05.25 2014가단9306
소유권말소등기
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. 원고의 부(父)이자 피고의 조부(祖父)인 E은 창녕군 D 대 602㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 토지’라 한다)를 소유하다가 1980. 7. 14. 사망하였다.

B. On November 24, 2006, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on June 13, 1980, pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500, invalidation, and special measures (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

C. After that, Defendant B sold shares in the above land to F on July 28, 201, and G completed the registration of ownership transfer for sale on May 30, 2013 with respect to the instant land on the ground of sale on April 18, 2013, and upon G’s death, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 2015 due to inheritance by agreement division.

On the other hand, there are plaintiffs, H, I, A, J, K, L, M, and N.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although Defendant B did not have received a donation from E, the Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void since the registration of ownership transfer was made based on a false letter of guarantee, and the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant C, which was successively completed based on the registration of invalidation, is also null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as one of the successors of the instant land, sought the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration against Defendant B, and seek implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the restoration of real name with respect to the 382/602 shares, which were shares held by Defendant B against Defendant C.

B. The Defendants’ assertion E had already been divided into property for their children before their death, and Defendant B, the grandchildren, was disabled.

arrow