logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.28 2016나2071776
소유권이전등기
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration against the Defendants and the deposit against Defendant E is without permission.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration

A. Each real estate listed in the separate list, which is the cause of this part of the claim, was owned by the Plaintiffs and the father of Defendant D, and as the F dies, the Plaintiffs, the co-inheritors, and the Plaintiffs, and the mother of Defendant D, acquired co-inheritors’ share in share in the share of shares in relation to each of the instant real estate.

However, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant D on the ground that F had bequeathed each of the instant real estate to Defendant D by a will by a notarial deed (F on June 7, 2012).

However, at the time of the preparation of the above notarial deed, F was not capable of making a will, and the said testamentary gift is not effective as it is not prepared by the method under Article 1068 of the Civil Act. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer that is completed in the future of Defendant D with respect to 9/11 shares out of each of the instant real estate shall be cancelled as a cause invalidation. Based on the registration of ownership transfer that is completed in the future of Defendant D, the registration of ownership transfer that is completed in the future of Defendant E should also be cancelled.

B. Determination 1) The F is the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant D, G is the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendant D as the spouse of F, and Defendant E is the spouse of Defendant D.

B) On June 7, 2012, F had completed the transfer registration of ownership in the future of F.C.) The first real estate of this case: (a) was present at the office of the Patent Law Firm I, the Defendants, K, and J, and entrusted Q, an attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, who was present at the office of the Patent Law Firm I, to prepare a notarial deed; and (b) Q, a witness, at the presence of K and J, bequeathed of the property on the property list prepared in advance from F to Defendant D with the intent of testamenting the said property to F.

arrow