logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.05.12 2015가단74897
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 조선시대에 ‘행용양위(行龍衛)’라는 벼슬을 지낸 C를 공동선조로 하여 그 후손을 구성원으로 하는 종중으로서 ‘전남 고흥군 B’를 주사무소로 하고 있다.

나. 이 사건 토지에 관하여 1949. 5. 9. ‘고흥군 D’에 주소를 둔 ‘행용양위(行龍衛)’ 앞으로 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

C. On March 17, 1997, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the acquisition of non-owned real estate with respect to the instant land.

On the other hand, on July 22, 1975, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of F, G, H, I 2,00 square meters and J 1,00 square meters with respect to the land size of 1,369 square meters in the Jeon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the family property of the same clan, in the name of F, G, H, H, I 2,00 square meters.

E. In around 2000, the Plaintiff clan continued the business of relocating the tomb of the ancestor on the instant land.

At present, there are seven graves on the land of this case, and there are those graves of C, the co-helper of the plaintiff, those graves of C, and those of C, and those graves of C.

바. ‘용양위(行龍衛)’란 조선 전기 중앙군의 근간인 5위(衛)의 하나로 양반자제 가운데서 시험에 의해 선발되고 주로 마병(馬兵)으로 편성된 군사조직을 말한다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 11 (including each number), Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of a person who does not have the right to request the confirmation of ownership, among the lawsuits in this case, is made by the intention to restore the ownership of the land to a close circuit, such registration shall be deemed to be a registration expressing the right to the close circuit. In this case, the entry of the holder of the title on the

Even if the identity of personality is recognized, it is merely subject to the correction of indication.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da36360 delivered on June 13, 1995). Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant land is a parcel of land.

arrow