(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.17 2018가단70391

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) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.17 2018가단70391

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 1989, the land of this case was divided into 10,612 square meters of the forest land in Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) into 7,957 square meters of forest land and 2,655 square meters of forest land and 2,655 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The land prior to the instant subdivision was owned by the network D (the Plaintiff died on April 2, 1984, and the Plaintiff was the deceased head of the network D) and the ownership transfer registration for the land prior to the instant subdivision was completed on November 20, 1980 under the Plaintiff’s name on June 13, 1994, for which the ownership transfer registration for the land prior to the instant subdivision was completed on the ground of a sale as of November 20, 1980. The instant land was completed on September 25, 1989 under the Defendant’s name on February 28, 1989.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case without consultation with the plaintiff under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition and Loss of Public Land, the transfer of ownership under the defendant's name should be cancelled by the registration of invalidation of cause

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized only with the evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 3-5, No. 1 through No. 5, No. 7, and No. 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser E’s appraisal, the Defendant can only recognize the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 95,800 to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.10.30 2015가단8074

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.02.15 2015가단47728

-수원지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나58830

-대구지방법원 2019.04.25 2018가단130326

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.04.04 2013가합51803