logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.07.09 2018가단61903
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted on August 1, 1913 by the deceased C, and from March 6, 1970, from around June 27, 2016 to Nonparty D, E, and F, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land as the Plaintiff’s owner’s intent. As such, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the transfer registration for ownership based on the completion of the prescriptive prescription.

However, since registration of ownership preservation cannot be made because no address, resident registration number, etc. other than the above C's name is stated in the land cadastre of this case, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of ownership of this case against the defendant in subrogation of the above C for the preservation of the above claim for registration of ownership transfer.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Since the Defendant’s main defense against this case’s land cadastre that the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of ownership is indicated to C as an assessment against G, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered and the land is neither a registered titleholder nor a registered titleholder is known in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, there is benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as denying ownership by a third party registered or recorded, and continuing to claim ownership by the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815, Oct. 27, 2016). 2), in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, there is no dispute over the instant case in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in the entries in evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 1 of evidence No. 2-1, and evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the instant land in the former land cadastre is written as being the situation of G’s land cadastre, and that it is the permanent domicile indicated as the former land cadastre C in the former land cadastre.

arrow