logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.11.28 2017가단2389
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 12, 1956, the Plaintiff’s headquarters’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant land from the deceased N (hereinafter “the deceased”) at KRW 22,500, and on the same day, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price in full to the deceased.

Since both the deceasedO and the deceased died, the Defendants, the deceased’s inheritors, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on January 12, 1956 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff, the deceased’s heir.

B. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land for more than 60 years from the date of conclusion of the sales contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription

2. Determination

A. On January 12, 1956, the deceased purchased the instant land from the deceased, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was inherited the deceased’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the deceased.

B. Even if the Plaintiff had a claim for ownership transfer registration against the Defendants on the ground of sale as of January 12, 1956 on the land of this case, the right to claim ownership transfer registration is a claim with the lapse of ten years (Article 162(1) of the Civil Act) (Article 162 of the Civil Act). The lawsuit of this case is clearly recorded in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 8, 2017 after the lapse of ten years from January 12, 1956, the outstanding payment date, and thus, the above right to claim ownership transfer registration has already expired before the lawsuit of this case is filed. Thus, the defendants' defense of the statute of limitations has merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow