(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.07 2014가합8160

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.07 2014가합8160

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 14, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) received a successful bid in the auction procedure (the Incheon District Court D; hereinafter “instant auction”); (b) paid the purchase price on January 3, 2002; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on February 14, 2002.

B. On February 4, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E in possession of part of the instant real estate on the premise that he acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, but on July 11, 2002, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “Although the instant real estate was registered as an aggregate building that serves as the object of sectional ownership, each of the said stores is not distinguishable from structural and use, registration of preservation of ownership is null and void, and the Plaintiff who was awarded a successful bid cannot acquire ownership,” the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 6, 202.

C. On August 28, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment against the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2002Gahap53471, hereinafter “the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment in this case”) against the Liquidation Finance Corporation, a creditor of the auction in this case, against the Plaintiff, the registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate in this case, and the registration of creation of mortgage and the auction in this case on the premise that the auction in this case is null and void, but the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 1, 2003 to the effect that “The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Peace Industry Co., Ltd. as to the real estate in this case is valid as a registration indicating a partitioned building, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership after receiving

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na47586), but the above judgment is the same.

유사 판례

-대법원 2014.12.11 2013다42403

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.19 2018나63299

-인천지방법원 2015.03.17 2014가합9447

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.10 2015나746

-인천지방법원 2014.05.30 2014재나46