2016Na23472 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. A;

2.B

3.C

4.D

5.E

6.F

Zinty Trust Co., Ltd

P

Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Da52684 Decided September 30, 2016

October 18, 2017

November 15, 2017

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant is borne by the defendant, and due to the participation in assistance.

The defendant joining the defendant is responsible for the part.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the recovery of each real name with respect to each of the relevant shares listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Form No. 2 of the Inheritance Shares Calculation Table of the attached Form No. 420 square meters in the ship (A), which connects the respective points to the Plaintiffs of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 1 of the attached Form No. 477 square meters

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The court's reasoning for this part is that "O filed a lawsuit for the claim of ownership transfer registration based on sale and purchase on October 10, 1960 against I (O) No. 85da989, P, P, "P," and the above court rendered a judgment accepting O's claim on March 19, 1986 (hereinafter "previous judgment"), which became final and conclusive on April 5 of the same year.O completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 21, 1986 with respect to the shares of this case on October 10, 1986, as stated in the main sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, "P," and "No. 2 of the defendant's appeal" as stated in the main sentence of Paragraph 1 of the same Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and "No. 4 of the judgment is added to "No. 2 of the defendant's appeal".

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the transfer registration of ownership completed on April 21, 1986 under the name of April 21, 1986 as to the shares of this case is the invalidation of cause. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted that the sale on October 10, 1960, which was followed by the death of 0 as the cause of claim against I, who had already died, as the cause of claim for the transfer registration of ownership of the shares of this case. In the above lawsuit, the previous judgment acceptingO's claim was made and the judgment became final and conclusive, and 0 was completed based on the above previous judgment. Thus, the previous judgment was against I who had already died at the time of the lawsuit, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of O, which was completed on the shares of this case, constitutes the registration of invalidation of cause, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, Q region housing association, main food company’s living real estate trust, Q region housing association, and Defendant’s name should also be deemed null and void. Ultimately, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to each of the relevant shares listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Form No. 2 of the Inheritance Shares Calculation Table of the attached Form to the Plaintiffs, who are the successors who have ultimately succeeded to the instant shares, seeking the exclusion of interference based on their ownership, who are the successors to seek the exclusion of the instant shares based on the ownership.

3. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) As for the reasons of the previous judgment, the Defendant recognized thatO purchased the instant shares from I on October 10, 1960 from 8,000,000, and therefore, the name of O as to the instant shares.

Although his claim is asserted to the effect that the transfer registration of ownership is consistent with the substantive relationship, the previous judgment was rendered against the deceased I, as seen earlier, and that I had already died at the time of the contract as of October 10, 1960. Thus, the mere fact that the establishment of the O and I contract was recognized in the reason of the previous judgment cannot be deemed as the registration that conforms to the substantive relationship. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s claim is without merit.

2) The defendant asserts that since the acquisition by prescription on April 22, 2006 by possession was completed afterO received previous judgment and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the shares in this case, O and its family members occupy the land in this case for about 28 years from April 21, 1986 to July 24, 2014 as the intention to own the land before annexation and the land in this case, and the acquisition by prescription on April 22, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer by the defendant with respect to the shares in this case is inconsistent with the substantive relation.

First, as to whether the Defendant or the Intervenor occupied the land prior to the annexation of the instant case or the land for more than 20 years from April 21, 1986, the testimony of the witness of the trial court and the statement in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 6-1, 2-8-1, 2, 8-2, 9-1 through 5, 12-1 through 69 and the witness of the trial court is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Even if theO or the Intervenor, even though he had been aware of more than 20 years of the instant land or the instant land prior to the annexation, it is reasonable to view that the presumption of 0 autonomous possession was broken, as seen earlier, inasmuch as theO had already concluded an I and the instant land sales contract with the deceased for the instant shares, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer in its name as a result of the previous judgment of invalidation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

The actual owner of the land prior to the merger was U.S., and the name on the registry was erroneously written in I and J. 00, 00 was purchased from U.S., the actual owner of the land prior to the merger, and thereafter the acquisition by prescription was completed by O and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor who occupied the land in peace and openly for twenty (20) years. As such, the Defendant’s transfer of ownership as to the instant shares

2) Determination

The Intervenor joining the Defendant alleged that the actual owner of the land before the merger was U, not the nominal owner on the registry, but U, and that O purchased the land before the merger from U, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness N in the entries in No. 10-1, 2, 11, 12-1, and 12-1 through 69 and the testimony of the witness N in the trial of the party. Therefore, the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without any need to examine any further.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-chul

Judges Appellateization

Judges Choi Jae-won

1) The defendant asserts thatO has occupied the instant land for twenty (20) years from January 21, 1986, which completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares. However, sinceO completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares on April 21, 1986, it seems that " January 21, 1986" alleged by the defendant was erroneous.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.