(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.09.23 2016가단209244

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.09.23 2016가단209244

가등기말소

Text

1. The defendant has a branch office of Suwon District Court for the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 16, 1996, Nonparty E completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 7, 1996, the Defendant registered the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on October 7, 1996 by the Suwon District Court Branch of Sung-nam Branch of the Sungwon District Court on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of October 5, 1996, under the receipt No. 133564 on October 7, 196.

C. On November 29, 2013, E’s networks completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on the ground of a testamentary gift dated May 27, 2013.

The network A died on June 25, 2016, and there are plaintiffs who are their children.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant's right to complete the purchase and sale reservation of this case, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, is apparent that about 20 years have passed since it was established ( October 5, 1996) and it was extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to the plaintiffs, the owner of this real estate of this case.

B. Although the defendant alleged that the deceased Gap approved it, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no interruption of the period during the exclusion period. Thus, the defendant's assertion does not seem to be any mother or is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.24 2016가단221541

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013. 12. 20. 선고 2013가단23388 판결

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.06 2017가단204949

-인천지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가합55523

-춘천지방법원 2017.03.16 2015가단8165