logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.08.11 2014나3069
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the Defendant: (a) each land listed in the separate sheet was 340 square meters prior to H, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) however, G, the decedent of the Plaintiffs, removed the building on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2; and (c) divided the land before subdivision into the land listed in the separate sheet No. 340 square meters in order to re-construction the building on that land by agreement with the Defendant and the co-defendant D, and E. In light of this, the part on which G was under divided ownership is not the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, but the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, which is not the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, and even if that is not, the Plaintiffs cannot seek the transfer of

According to the fact-finding results with respect to the statements in subparagraphs 1-2 and 1-2 of subparagraph 1 and the fact-finding with respect to the head of the Dobong-gu Office of the trial court, G, the decedent of the plaintiffs, and the co-defendant D, and E, of the first instance court, filed a joint application with the plaintiffs around July 2010, and divided them into each land listed in the separate sheet of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H 340 square meters into each land, but the above circumstance alone existed on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that G exclusively vests the land indicated in No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 1 between the Defendant, etc. with the Defendant, etc., and that G agreed not to exercise ownership, etc. as to the land indicated in No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant.

arrow