logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가단231951
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendants’ share 1/24 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff on November 11, 1992.

Reasons

1. On May 15, 1980, the registration of transfer of ownership of 1/4 shares in H, I, J, and K respectively was completed on May 27, 1980 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of [Attachment 1] of [Attachment 1] of the basic facts (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Attached Form

On November 2, 1987, the registration of transfer of ownership of 1/4 shares was made in the name of the plaintiff, I, J, and K respectively on the same day on the grounds of sale and purchase on the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the List (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”).

The J died on February 16, 2013, and the Defendants, their children, succeeded to the J as their respective shares of 1/6.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Gap's evidence Nos. 2 (the authenticity is recognized by the purport of testimony and pleading of the witness), evidence Nos. 4-6, and the purport of Eul's testimony and pleading as a whole, the plaintiff, I, J, and K purchased the real estate of this case 1 and 2 together (However, among the real estate of this case, the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was made at the time of the plaintiff's accommodation). K in this court stated that "the plaintiff's share among the real estate of this case requires money due to his marriage, etc., and it is the plaintiff's share of this case 1 and 2, and that the plaintiff's share of this case was the death of 44,00,000,000 won after November 11, 1992, the plaintiff concluded a contract with J to purchase the shares of J 44,00,000 won, and that Gap paid the purchase price in cash to the plaintiff 2 of this case's property tax of this case 20,000, which was the plaintiff's testimony of this case 2.

The above facts of recognition and relation between the plaintiff, J and K, A.

arrow