logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2011. 6. 29. 선고 2010나26919 판결
[소유권말소등기][미간행]
Plaintiff, Appellant

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Defendant (Law Firm Love, Attorneys Lee Byung-hun et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 8, 2011

The first instance judgment

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Da79329 Decided September 3, 2010

Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on August 20, 2009 by the Sungwon District Court, No. 32843, which was completed on August 20, 2009, with respect to one half of the share of 1950 square meters, among the 1950 square meters of the Sung-ri-ri-ri Sung (

【Purpose of Appeal】

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) in the judgment of the court of first instance, the “Defendant’s Intervenor” and “ Intervenor” both are “Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor” and Article 2-e and (f) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the Nonparty of the judgment of the court of first instance); and (b) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2.-2(e) and (f);

Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant knew or could have known the above circumstances in breach of trust, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to Non-Party 5’s testimony as to whether the Defendant knew or could have known, namely, the following circumstances: (a) even if the Defendant’s own statement was followed by Non-Party 1’s own statement, it was concluded on August 14, 2009 without contact with Non-Party 3 that the land was transferred to water and without confirming the copy of the register or the contract at all, up to KRW 100,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)

It is impossible to sign and seal due to judge's training on contribution;

arrow