logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.01.14 2019가단54674
소유권확인
Text

1. It shall be confirmed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by the plaintiff;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Each land cadastre of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) is indicated as being the assessment of each of the instant land around 1913 and around 1914 by C, who has a domicile in Bri at Jeju.

Each land of this case is currently unregistered.

B. The plaintiff's protocol is written as E with his address in Jeju City as a transcript, and Part F is written as C as written in the above land cadastre.

C. Around July 6, 1920, the Plaintiff’s father E died, and the Plaintiff’s father G inherited the property solely, and the said G died on July 2, 1981 and succeeded to the Plaintiff, H, and I, his children.

Plaintiff

On March 7, 2019, H and I consulted on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff unilaterally succeeds to each of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, 10 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation, since it is clear that each of the lands of this case was circumstances to C residing in Jeju, and therefore, it is not a land with no registered titleholder or identity, but a State does not deny the ownership of a registered titleholder, so there is no benefit in confirmation.

In the land cadastre of this case, only the name holder is a C residing in B accounting at Jeju, and there is no specific address, date of birth, and resident registration number, and there is a dispute as to whether C and the deceased decedent E are the same person. In such a case, it is not known whether the name holder of registration in the land cadastre is the same person.

As such, the plaintiff has a benefit to confirm his ownership.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

B. Determination as to the merits of this case

arrow