logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단5099454
소유권확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the forest No. 7,240 square meters is owned by the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The forest of this case was 7,240 square meters in Gangwon-gun B forest land (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) located in C (the name of D was changed) E on July 9, 1921.

B. The Plaintiff’s father F’s family register was destroyed, and the permanent domicile on February 3, 1953 was re-divated by Gangwon-gun G, and the F’s father H’s removal from the family register is written as F’s birth place I in the breadth group.

C. Of the entire copies of Gangwon-gun C, the removed copies written by Jeonho-gun as H do not exist in addition to the Plaintiff’s secondary copies.

The Plaintiff’s father F died on March 7, 1973, and his inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property by inheritance of the Plaintiff’s forest land of this case on March 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, each fact inquiry result against the official office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts-finding and the evidence mentioned above, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s father and the person under whose name the situation stands the same, ② the person under whose name the circumstance occurred, and ② the person under whose name the birth of the Plaintiff’s father and the Nonparty’s father are identical to D, ③ the person under whose name the circumstance occurred, and ③ the person under whose name the former name was the E, it is reasonable to deem that the former name was the same.

Therefore, the forest land of this case is the real estate owned by the plaintiff inherited to the plaintiff through the plaintiff's father F, and there is a benefit of confirmation because the defendant is dissatisfied with the situation of the plaintiff's fleet E.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow