logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.17 2018가단34542
소유권보존등기말소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Land D (10t = 300 square meters) is registered as E in the forest survey document prepared under the former Joseon Forest Survey Order (No. 5, 1918, and repealed of the Order).

(Date of Report or Notification: July 30, 1919). The land category was changed from May 31, 1958 to forest land, and the land became the land of this case following registration conversion, etc.

B. The defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on September 18, 1996 on the land of this case.

C. Meanwhile, on May 2, 1950, F, the Plaintiff, on the other hand, died on May 2, 1950, and the Plaintiff’s father and G, his father, solely inherited his own property. G died on June 7, 1982, and the Plaintiff, as his father, jointly succeeded to G’s property with other co-inheritors.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s land was owned by G who succeeded to the land from F, which was acquired at the original time due to the circumstance, and after G’s death, it is owned by co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff. Since the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name was invalid, the registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name is the registration of invalidation, the Plaintiff, as the act of preservation of the jointly owned property

B. The Defendant E and the Plaintiff’s prior payment cannot be deemed the same. Even if the same person is the same, G, F or its heir, appears to have already disposed of the instant land to another person. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation registration premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is co-owner of the instant land is without merit.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, if the situation titleholder and the Plaintiff’s name are identical to the address of the owner under the provision at the time of preparation of the forest survey report, if the address of the owner is the same as that of the forest, the statement shall be omitted.

arrow