(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나7892 | 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) 광주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나7892

소유권지분이전등기

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C shall list the Plaintiff’s attached list.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the establishment of the facts of recognition and the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 3

A. The facts of recognition 1) D is the legal spouse of the deceased E (Death on December 24, 2013) and the Defendants are the parents of the deceased E. 2) Network E on December 20, 2013, the notary public signed and sealed by himself and the witnesses in the presence of the Plaintiff and F as a witness, signed and sealed by himself and the witness on December 20, 2013. The notary public bequeathed the instant real estate to D by a will by an authentic document No. 2839 of the notarial deed No. 2013, and designated the Plaintiff as the executor.

3) However, notwithstanding the above will, after the death of the deceased, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for each of two-seven shares of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendants on December 24, 2013. [The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, Gap evidence 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

B. Determination as to whether the authenticity of the evidence No. 3 (No. 3) is established, i.e., a notary public or an attorney-at-law who is a member of the joint legal office authorized to handle notarial affairs at the request of the client or his/her client, the statement that he/she directly heard at the request of the client or his/her client, and the document that states the above facts is presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 327(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2046, Jun. 28, 1994). As to the above, the Defendants asserted that the signature of the evidence No. 3 (original copy of the No. 3) was forged, i.e., the statement No. 1 and No. 2, and the written request for appraisal at the trial of the parties. According to the results of the written request for appraisal, it is presumed that there is a difference between the name "E" of the testator No. 3 in the No. 3 will column No. 1 and No. 2, the evidence No. 3.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제327조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 6. 28. 선고 94누2046 판결

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.05.24 2016가단60180

-울산지방법원 2017.11.22 2016가단20168

-의정부지방법원 2014.11.26 2014가단23652

-전주지방법원 2018.10.05 2017가단20618

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.31 2015가단27424