(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.06 2014가합6903

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) 대전지방법원 2015.05.06 2014가합6903

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall not be less than 1.1% of the real estate listed in the attached list 1.

Reasons

According to the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the entire argument as to the Plaintiff’s claim for intervention by the independent party, the Defendant and B were the original acquisitor of the instant officetel. However, on June 14, 2012, the Defendant and B had the name of the owner of the instant officetel for the purpose of securing security, and entered the instant officetel in the name of the owner of the instant officetel in the name of the Plaintiff and the owner of the instant officetel for the purpose of registration of ownership transfer in the name of KRW 580,000,000 (hereinafter “instant officetel”). The Defendant are obligated to implement the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s shares among subparagraphs 701 through 803. The instant officetel was completed at the expense of the Intervenor’s effort and cost. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and B had the name of the owner of the instant officetel for the purpose of registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff and the instant officetel for the purpose of registration of ownership transfer in the name of the owner of the instant officetel.

As to subparagraphs 701 through 803, registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the defendant and B, and thereafter, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 14, 2012 with respect to the portion of subparagraphs 701 through 803 to the plaintiff.

Since the owner of heading 201 to 605 against the plaintiff is not the plaintiff but the intervenor, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff with respect to heading 201 to 605 is null and void.

An intervenor, as the owner, seeks implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to subparagraphs 201 through 605 to the Plaintiff.

Of the titles 701 to 803, owners of 1/2 shares in B, not B, are participants, and therefore B.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.08 2016가단237045

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.08.24 2016가단6029

-서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나12510

-대전지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가합265

-의정부지방법원 2016.03.31 2016고단179