logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.05.02 2016나51566
소유권말소등기
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 1963, the network I was divided into F 1,481 square meters in Gangseo-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f.).

B. The Network I died on May 10, 1970.

K, which is the difference of the network I and the Defendants’ subsidiaries, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 30, 1976, with the receipt No. 976 on February 3, 1976, even though it did not purchase the F land before subdivision and the third land from the network I.

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of transfer of the first ownership”).

K died in around 2013, and on the land No. 1 and No. 2 of January 9, 2014, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed due to inheritance due to the inheritance due to the division in each consultation in Defendant D in respect of the third land.

(hereinafter referred to as “second ownership transfer registration”) d.

On May 10, 1970, the network I died, 4/19, 6/19, 4/19, 3/19, 4/19, 3/19, 2/19, 4/19, 4/19, 3/19, and 4/19, 19, and 0 (the place of birth at the time of death of the network I) shared inheritance of the network I in proportion to 1/19.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On August 2014, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s attorney did not have the right to attorney, since the Plaintiff’s act of brain damage and did not recognize the person due to brain damage. As such, the Plaintiff’s act of attorney did not have the right to attorney, the Plaintiff’s act of attorney did not have the right to attorney.

(b).

arrow