(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.12 2019나56142

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) 수원지방법원 2020.05.12 2019나56142

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the birth of the deceased I (hereinafter "the deceased"), and the defendants are the children of the deceased.

B. On January 25, 2003, the Deceased was the owner of 116/446 shares (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 25, 2003, the Deceased concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the said land at KRW 1364,00,000, and to pay the price in lump sum payment on January 27, 2003 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Deceased died on September 6, 2015, and the Defendants inherited the Deceased at the ratio of 1/6, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On January 25, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a duty to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land by giving KRW 13 million to the Deceased for the repayment of the loan and received the instant land. As such, the Defendants who inherited the Deceased were obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations lapsed, not only did they hear from the deceased at all about the instant sales contract.

B. First of all, whether the statute of limitations expired or not, the instant sales contract was concluded on January 25, 2003, and the payment date of the purchase price was as seen earlier. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the claim for ownership transfer registration under the said sales contract expired on January 27, 2013, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription does not run since the Plaintiff had established a tombate on the land of this case from the date of acquiring the land of this case to the date of its management.

If the buyer continues to possess the target real estate after being handed over, that real estate.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.10.24 2016가단32420

-울산지방법원 2019.11.22 2019가단6699

-광주지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나2419

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.12.18 2018가단55222

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.08.18 2019가단6923