logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.04.17 2017가단33762
소유권확인
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion of 572 square meters prior to B in Gangnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”) is unregistered with land and its land cadastre is registered as D having a domicile in “C” as its owner. The said person is the same as the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”).

Therefore, since the plaintiffs jointly own the land of this case according to each ratio listed in the attached inheritance shares table, they seek confirmation that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs.

B. Before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975, the land cadastre arbitrarily restored for the convenience of taxation without any legal basis is indicated by the competent authority’s name.

Even if it is impossible to recognize the presumption of right in the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da16493, Aug. 22, 1995). The old land cadastre as to the land of this case can be acknowledged that the cadastral record was restored for convenience of taxation on December 12, 1962, before the enforcement of the above Cadastral Act, after the Korean War was destroyed and the cadastral record was destroyed due to the Korean War, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the land of this case was owned by the deceased for the aforementioned reasons.

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of a clan to which the deceased belongs, as otherwise asserted by the plaintiffs, for the land adjacent to the land of this case as the co-owner.

However, even if the land of this case is occupied by the deceased’s descendants, such fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the land of this case is owned by the deceased.

Therefore, the primary claim based on the premise that the land in this case is owned by the deceased is without merit.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. If the land of this case claimed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is not owned by the Deceased, this case shall be applicable.

arrow