logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.24 2014가단49586
소유권보존등기말소
Text

1. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, the Jung-gu District Court’s Seoul District Court’s annual registry office.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The head of the sports group B, and C were assessed against D.

B. Following the reorganization of administrative district, the above sports group B was the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table, and the sports group C was changed into the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

C. As to each of the instant real estate, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on October 7, 2013 as the receipt No. 12368 on October 7, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff’s father who died in 1963 and became co-inheritors, E, F, and E died in 1982 and became co-inheritors by G, H, I, and the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Any person registered in the Land Survey Book as an owner shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive by taking into account the circumstances as the owner of the land or forest so long as there is no reflective evidence such as the change in the situation by the adjudication, etc., and shall acquire the relevant land or forest arbitrarily, if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration has been in the situation of the relevant land, and if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration has been in the situation of the relevant land, the registration

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the court's fact-finding as a result of the fact-finding of the court's fact-finding, it can be acknowledged that the situation name of the real estate in this case and the name of D, who is the father of the plaintiff, were the same as the Chinese father of the plaintiff, and the legal domicile of D, who is the father of the plaintiff, is the same as the family unit of Ri unit as the location of the real estate in this case and the legal domicile of D, who is the father of the plaintiff, as the father of the plaintiff, at the time of the circumstances concerning the real estate in this case, the situation that the plaintiff's father and Dong were located in Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter "K at the time of the situation"), does not peep. In light of these circumstances

arrow