(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나51870

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) 부산지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나51870

소유권이전말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since title trust between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the forest land and site of this case is null and void, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name.

B. On October 13, 2016, after the closing of argument, the court of the first instance ordered the Plaintiff to submit tiny briefs by October 24, 2016 through an order to prepare tiny documents, which was issued to the Plaintiff, and sentenced the judgment without judgment even though the Plaintiff submitted tiny briefs within the given period. This is in violation of the procedure of pleading under the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. A. A claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of the judgment on the title trust claim is allowed in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current title holder by means of restoring the true title of the registration, or by the person who acquired ownership pursuant to the law, in which the registration was already registered to indicate the ownership in his/her future. The right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the right to claim for the cancellation of the registration of invalidation, which is allowed in lieu of the registration of cancellation, are to restore the name of the true owner, and its purpose is substantially identical, and both claims are identical in its legal basis and nature as the right to claim for the removal of interference based on the ownership. Therefore, even if the former takes the form of the registration of ownership transfer and the latter takes the form of the cancellation, the subject matter of a lawsuit shall be deemed to be the same as the actual title. Therefore, if a final judgment against

참조조문

-민사소송법

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.11.10 2016가단16392

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.09.22 2019나32887

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.12.05 2018가단235100

-서울고등법원 2018.01.31 2017나2037568

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.17 2019가단5097415