logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가단93137
소유권보존등기말소 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s prior owner of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “the deceased”) was allocated the instant land and E/F land in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, as a cultivator of the 186 E/L in Yangju-si, Yangju-gun-gun-gun-gun, Yangju-gun-gun-gun (hereinafter “E”) and the 482 E/F (hereinafter “F land”).

On February 20, 1956, the Deceased succeeded to property, including the status of the cultivator, from the Deceased. The Plaintiff completed reimbursement of the instant land, E, and F, around 1963.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, sought the procedure for the cancellation of registration of the registration of the preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name, which was completed on February 10, 1959 by the Jung-gu District Court’s Office of Government Registry No. 733.

B. In light of the following circumstances in view of the evidence Nos. 1 through 15-6, evidence Nos. 1 through 15-3, and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff completed the repayment of the instant land around 1963, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

(1) The Plaintiff did not submit a redemption certificate on the instant land.

(2) On the upper part of the refund ledger of this case, the registration system is written, and the seal is affixed to the non-high column of land E and F land among the duplicates of the refund ledger of this case, and with respect to land E and land F, the registration of ownership transfer is made for each repayment reason. However, in the remarks column of the land of this case among the duplicates of the refund ledger of this case, the seal is not affixed, and there is no inspector’s seal on the part received 78 seats in 1963, and with respect to the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff

arrow