logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.20 2017가합37213
소유권이전등기 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The heads of E and F are G and South Korea H, and the Plaintiff A is the wife of H, the Plaintiff B is the child of H, and the Defendant is the child of G.

The relationship between the plaintiffs, the defendant and their families and the time of death are as shown in the attached Form.

B. On April 1, 1967, the land prior to the instant subdivision was owned by J. The registration of preservation of ownership in H was completed on August 11, 197 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969; hereinafter “Forest Measures Act”).

The land before the instant partition was divided into 1,503 square meters of I forest land (hereinafter “I land”) and 8,414 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) on May 17, 1979. With respect to the instant land on June 20, 1981, the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant registration”) was completed on October 31, 1977 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Partition and the Registration of Ownership Transfer of the former Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) based on the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant registration”) under the Defendant’s name on October 1, 1981. As to the I land on October 5, 1972.

C. 1) The deceased H’s inheritors, including the Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that the instant registration was based on a false guarantee certificate and confirmation document, and sought the confirmation of the right to grave base on the deceased H’s grave installed in the instant land, preliminaryly, on the ground that the instant registration was invalid by a false certification certificate and confirmation document. 2) The Defendant filed the lawsuit as to the ground for the acquisition of the instant land, unlike the ground for acquisition on the register, was missing at the time of the Korean War, and the Defendant distributed it to the family members in order, while the deceased F, actually owning and managing all the property on the house.

arrow