(영문) 대법원 2017.02.15 2013다98857 | 리걸엔진

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) 대법원 2017.02.15 2013다98857

소유권이전등기말소등기

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the third ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the entity of a clan as a unique meaning is not recognized, on the grounds that: (a) the Appointed C (hereinafter “C”) did not independently act before 1991 and the joint ancestor was not confirmed until 2008; and (b) did not recognize the unique meaning of a clan.

B. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, the lower court determined that each of the instant real estate was a real estate title trust-related circumstance prior to the transfer of the title, or that it should be deemed that, upon considering the following factors: (a) the size of each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), circumstances (registration) and the relationship between the title holder and the Plaintiff, circumstances (registration), mutual relationship between the title holder; (b) the building of a grave among the Plaintiff-type and the wing, and the management of real estate; (c) the real estate was a real ownership of the Plaintiff-type during the instant period; or (d) it

B. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

유사 판례

-대법원 1987. 7. 14. 선고 85다카1033 판결

-대법원 1991. 2. 12. 선고 90다13178 판결

-대법원 2016.10.13 2015다219665

-대법원 1981. 2. 24. 선고 80누376 판결

-대법원 2019.06.13 2018다229342