(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.18 2017가단15791

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.18 2017가단15791

소유권이전등기말소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In the absence of dispute, with respect to the building stated in the purport of the claim on the ground of the land stated in the non-party E’s claim (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of preservation of ownership under the name of the defendant B was completed on October 10, 2017 by the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court under Article 79698, which received by the Busan Branch of the Incheon Branch of the District Court, and on October 30, 2017, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant C was completed on October 30, 20

2. The gist of the party’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff: (a) originally built the instant building and subsequently acquired ownership; and (b) Defendant B had made registration of ownership preservation on the instant building without permission; (c) sought cancellation of registration of ownership preservation against Defendant B; and (d) sought cancellation of registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C, which was based on the invalid registration of ownership preservation.

3. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

As to this, the Plaintiff agreed to newly construct the instant building and to transfer it to the Plaintiff, but did not perform it, and transferred ownership to Defendant B. Although the instant building appears to be the Plaintiff’s ownership, the acquisition, loss, and transfer of ownership due to a juristic act on real estate takes effect, the registration of acquisition, loss, and transfer of ownership due to a juristic act on real estate takes effect. Thus, insofar as the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was not made on the instant building, it cannot be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s ownership. Thus, the Plaintiff’

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가합557010

-대법원 2019.07.25 2019다216091

-대구지방법원 2019.06.13 2018나300423

-인천지방법원 2015.11.06 2014가합57248

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.08.11 2019가단30132