(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.08.31 2016가단133574

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.08.31 2016가단133574

소유권이전등기

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the facts that Gap and its wife owned 1/2 shares of the real estate of this case; the plaintiff and the defendants were children of Eul and Eul; and the death of Eul on April 26, 2016, the plaintiff 4/36 shares of Eul among the real estate of this case due to inheritance by agreement division on July 11, 2016; the registration of transfer of shares transfer with respect to shares of 7/36 shares was completed in the defendants' future; on the other hand, Gap and its wife on July 31, 2016.

8. 8. 8. In the witness F and G, the Defendants did not inherit the E portion of the instant real estate and succeeded to the statutory inheritance shares of A, and the Defendants made a will by means of the instrument of acceptance stating that “A shall succeed to the said statutory inheritance shares,” and the fact that A died on March 16, 2017.

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendants, without A’s consent, forged a contract for a partition with respect to the instant real estate using A’s seal imprint, and completed the registration with respect to the instant real estate in excess of the Defendants’ statutory shares in inheritance. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, a heir of A, is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the recovery of authentic names with respect to each of 3/36 shares exceeding 4/36 shares in statutory shares in inheritance among the instant real estate.

The records and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 are insufficient to acknowledge that the defendants forged a contract for a division of agreement with respect to E's shares by using Gap's seal imprint certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion that since the plaintiff succeeded to the above 3/36 shares according to the will of the plaintiff according to the instrument A, the defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer of ownership.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.10.11 2016가단1115

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.08.26 2014가단18500

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.12.16 2015가단546

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.10.17 2016가단55372

-서울동부지방법원 2017.01.13 2014가단14291