(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.01.18 2016가단22588

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.01.18 2016가단22588

교환계약이행청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant No. 1” and “instant No. 2”).

The network D was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter each of the “3 real estate of this case,” “4 real estate of this case,” and “5 real estate of this case,” and died on June 25, 1979. On December 7, 1993, the Defendants, co-inheritors of the network D, filed for registration of ownership transfer or registration of ownership transfer by 1/2 shares for the real estate of this case, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 5, 1967, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion E entered into an agreement with the deceased on behalf of the Plaintiff to exchange the real estate No. 1 and part of the real estate No. 2 of this case, and the real estate No. 3, 4, and 5 of this case (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”).

The plaintiff has been transferred the real estate of this case from the deceased D and has occupied it on the ground while afforested it on that ground.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, pursuant to the instant exchange contract, seeks the Defendants to take over the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the first real estate and part of the second real estate of this case, and seek implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the third, fourth, and fifth real estate of this case.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the determination on the cause of the claim, Gap evidence No. 2 (this part of the plaintiff's 's 1 real estate No. 385 square meters and 845 square meters of the plaintiff's 1 real estate No. 1 real estate No. 385 square meters owned by the plaintiff and the second real estate No. 2 real estate No. 2 of this case, although the defendants asserted that the above contract was forged, the evidence submitted by the defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above contract was forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.).

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.08.31 2017나10436

-대구지방법원 2015.01.06 2013가단818188

-대법원 2020.07.09 2018다284394

-대구지방법원 2015.02.04 2014나304076

-서울고등법원 2007.11.16 2007나9476