(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단26900

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단26900

소유권말소등기

Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' reasons for the claim of this case and the changed reasons for the claim are as stated in the changed reasons for the claim.

2. In order for the Plaintiffs to seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed under the name of the Defendant as part of the exercise of the right to claim exclusion against infringement of real rights based on the ownership of real estate, the Plaintiffs should first assert and prove the right to claim cancellation against the Plaintiffs. If it is not acknowledged that the Plaintiffs have such right, the Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be accepted without any need to examine whether the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant is invalid.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50044 Decided September 28, 2005, etc.). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs (A and B) have a legal title to file a claim for cancellation of registration against the defendant (it does not constitute a legal title to file a claim for cancellation of registration under the name of another person, even if the real estate of this case belongs to a clan of this case as alleged by the plaintiffs (it does not mean that such circumstance does not constitute a legal title to file a claim for cancellation of registration under the name of another person). Thus,

(In addition, the registration is presumed to have been completed lawfully according to the presumption of registration. If the plaintiffs claim that the real estate of this case is not the ownership of an individual but the ownership of a clan, a non-corporate association, the plaintiff's claim should be filed not by the plaintiffs but by the non-corporate association. In this respect, the plaintiffs' claim is not reasonable, and even if the registration of transfer of the ownership of the defendant's name is cancelled for any reason, as claimed by the plaintiffs, even if the registration of transfer of the ownership of the defendant's name is cancelled for any reason, the ownership of the

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 9. 28. 선고 2004다50044 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.08 2020가합501332

-인천지방법원 2017.08.18 2017나57311

-대법원 2019. 7. 10. 선고 2015다249352 판결

-대법원 1990. 5. 8. 선고 90다카1097 판결

-의정부지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나55179