logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나322130
소유권보전등기말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additions, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text

2. The addition;

A. G, H, who signed the Plaintiff’s assertion as the guarantor, was unaware of all the facts as to the ownership of the land of this case.

In addition, E, other guarantor, did not know the meaning of the letter of guarantee of this case properly and did not know what kind of agreement the defendant agreed with the plaintiff's side and affixed his seal on the letter of guarantee of this case.

The above guarantors have failed to meet the fundamental qualification requirements of the guarantor, which is a core and institutional device established to secure the authenticity of registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate.

Therefore, the presumption of preservation registration of this case, which is completed by the letter of guarantee prepared by the above guarantor, should be reversed.

B. Determination 1) The mere fact that a guarantor under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate was prepared and awarded a guarantee to guarantee a change in the right claimed by the registered titleholder without knowing the change in rights (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189 Decided April 29, 2005) does not change the presumption capacity of registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189, Apr. 29, 2005). Moreover, according to witness G and H’s testimony in the first instance trial on November 12, 191, it cannot be deemed that the presumption capacity of registration of this case is reversed solely on the basis of the above facts in light of the legal principles as to the presumption capacity of registration under the aforesaid Act.

arrow