logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2017.09.27 2016가단3084
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff

The summary of the argument is that the defendant obtained a false certification under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, hereinafter "Special Measures Act"), which was in force at the time with respect to the real estate owned by the plaintiff's client D, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case. Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership by the

Judgment

Since the registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the party seeking the reversal of the presumption has prepared a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act, which is the basis of the registration.

or forged;

The burden of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration should be proved to the extent that the substantive content of the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which served as the basis of the registration, is not true. Unless there is such proof, the presumption of the registration shall not be reversed.

Meanwhile, solely on the grounds that a guarantor under the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Change of Rights was prepared and awarded a guarantee to guarantee the change of rights by a registered titleholder without knowing the change of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189, Apr. 29, 2005). With respect to the instant real estate owned by the network D, the presumption of registration is not reversed. The fact that the transfer registration of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on the grounds of sale on April 15, 1978 under the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Change of Rights by the Party or is recognized by each description in the evidence A or 4.

However, in light of the above legal principles, E’s testimony of witness E is present as a witness and another guarantor is present in the letter of guarantee.

arrow