logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2020.12.10 2020가단12601
소유권말소등기
Text

The defendant on January 9, 1984, as to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 1984, D forest land 747 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before subdivision”) was divided into real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and 14 square meters of forest land E in Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The land category of E was converted into a road on January 9, 1984. On January 9, 1984, from the Plaintiff’s name on January 9, 1984, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on December 20, 1983 under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of sale as of December 20, 1983.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each entry in 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that only 14m2 of the land before the instant partition was incorporated into F local road packing, and that the land before the instant subdivision was divided into the real estate of this case and the instant E land, and that the registration of transfer of ownership should be cancelled by mistake not only the said E land but also the instant real estate, and that the registration of transfer of ownership should be cancelled by the invalidation of the cause. The defendant asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was acquired by the defendant through legitimate procedures.

3. According to the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 of the judgment, it is difficult to understand that the area of the instant real estate reaches 733 square meters, the land category of the instant real estate is currently forest land, the instant real estate is not currently being used as a road up to now, and the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant real estate, and there is evidence showing that the Plaintiff paid land compensation for the remainder of the land except the instant real estate, and there is no data for the instant real estate. On the contrary, it is difficult to understand that the content of the instant real estate was omitted as a fruitout.

arrow