logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.11.29 2017가단33390
소유권이전등기
Text

1. Defendant D entered into an agreement on August 11, 2010 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 180/2,698 square meters in Hanju-si E 2,698 square meters.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendants are South Korea.

On March 31, 197, the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ attached, died on March 31, 197. On March 6, 1992, the inheritors, including the Plaintiff and the Defendants, concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”) to solely inherit the instant land by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”). Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the inheritance by agreement and division on March 9, 192.

B. On June 1, 2007, Defendant B agreed to donate 360/2,698 of each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D.

(hereinafter “instant donation”). On the other hand, the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D agreed on the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant C on the share to be received by Defendant D through the instant donation, as to the share of 180/2,698 of each of the instant land.

(hereinafter “instant title trust”). C.

Accordingly, on June 13, 2007, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the instant donation with respect to the share of 540/2,698 of each of the instant land to the Plaintiff and Defendant C.

On August 11, 2010, Defendant D agreed to the Plaintiff on August 11, 201, and to transfer 180/2,698 out of the instant land that he held in title trust with Defendant C as the transfer cycle.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the result of Defendant D’s personal examination, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Defendant B and C’s judgment on the main defense of the safety of this case’s inheritance division agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff’s agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case is null and void, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the ownership transfer registration completed on March 9, 192 on the land of this case by Defendant B is exercising the right to claim for recovery of inheritance, and ten years have passed since the date of infringement of inheritance rights.

arrow