logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.05.16 2016가단109420
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B entered into an agreement on February 20, 201 with respect to the real estate No. 1 listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s clan F is divided from the Defendant’s clan into KRW 21,570 square meters (10,074 square meters among June 8, 2009, 10,074 square meters as the real estate indicated in the separate sheet; hereinafter “Before division”).

A) Defendant B clan (hereinafter “Defendant clan”) that has been kept under a title trust on June 28, 1995, and collected H from Jung-si to the Plaintiff on June 28, 1995.

() After organizing the real estate and completing the registration of transfer in the name of the Defendant clan by obtaining the said real estate from a false letter of guarantee purchased by the Defendant clan using the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 4502) which was in force at the time. Defendant E completed the registration of change in the indication of the registered titleholder on May 7, 2009, changing the representative of the Defendant clan to himself/herself, and completed the registration of change in the indication of the registered titleholder on the instant real estate, on the land before subdivision around June 8, 2009, the two real estate (10,074 square meters, hereinafter “Defendant land”).

A) Division. Around June 12, 2009, Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Defendant land for the purchase price of KRW 35 million. Around February 20, 201, Defendant E acknowledged the fact that Defendant E owned the Plaintiff’s real estate and KRW 15 million listed in the separate sheet, and agreed to register ownership transfer with the Plaintiff’s name until June 30, 201. In addition, Defendant E’s ownership to Defendant E cannot be recognized, since it is doubtful as to the fact that part of the land before subdivision was purchased and the boundary of the part purchased, even if the fact of partial purchase was recognized, the registration of Defendant E with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 is completed without any cause.

B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (i) the land before subdivision is sought around August 25, 1981.

arrow