(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.05 2014나6341 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2014.12.05 2014나6341

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the plaintiff's mother.

B. Each of the instant real estate was completed on April 26, 201, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the gift on April 26, 201 (hereinafter “instant gift”). The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s future on June 24, 201 as the receipt of No. 17193 of the Daejeon District Court’s official land branch office (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate transfer”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff: (a) at the time when the Plaintiff’s son operated F Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff could have completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant, by concerns that compulsory execution on each of the instant real estate should be conducted, because the Plaintiff’s son, at the time of operating the F Co., Ltd., was jointly and severally guaranteed by himself; (b) therefore, the instant donation becomes null and void by means of a false agreement; (c) each of the instant registration of ownership transfer is also null and void; and (d) the Defendant has a duty to register ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of authentic name to the Plaintiff, who was registered as the owner of each of the instant real estate in lieu of the cancellation of the registration. (b) The Plaintiff is remarkably lacking the capacity of separation, and the Defendant was unaware of the Plaintiff, and thus,

Therefore, since each transfer registration of ownership in this case is null and void, the defendant is obligated to register the transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name instead of cancelling the registration.

3. The plaintiff seems to have been askeding that his children receive a loan on each of the real estate of this case as security, and this was done.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.07.14 2015가단37084

-부산지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나51870

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.02.06 2014가단51966

-서울서부지방법원 2017.12.07 2017가단15907

-인천지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단254947