logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.02 2019가단229305
진정명의회복을 위한 소유권이전등기등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C

A. On the premise, Defendant D was the representative of the Plaintiff clan from 2010 to 2017. (2) The Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration was completed on May 6, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s clan was the ownership of the Plaintiff’s clan, and the ownership transfer registration was completed to Defendant B and C on February 27, 2017 due to the sale as of January 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Defendant D, despite the fact that there was no resolution of the general meeting of the clan with respect to the sale of the forest land of this case, he forged minutes of the extraordinary general meeting in the name of clan H, I, J, K, and L and sold the forest land of this case to G.

Since the above forest land was sold to Defendant B and C and the ownership transfer registration was completed in its name. Since the above Defendants’ registration of ownership transfer is null and void, the above Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name with respect to the above forest land to the Plaintiff.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 13, 5, 5, and 9, Defendant D, even if he did not hold an extraordinary general meeting of the plaintiff clan on January 17, 2013, prepared minutes of the extraordinary general meeting and affixed seals of clan H, I, J, K, and L, as he/she decided to sell the forest of this case to G on the said date, even if he/she did not hold an extraordinary general meeting of the plaintiff clan.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4, the plaintiff clan decided to sell the forest of this case at the special general meeting of October 28, 2012, and Defendant D as the convening authority on August 4, 2014.

arrow