(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가단5879

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) 전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가단5879

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The Defendant brought an all-round indictment on August 4, 2016 against the Plaintiffs regarding the area of 144 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As the Jeonju District Court 201Gadan8385, J and the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against K for the registration of ownership transfer on March 7, 1987 with respect to the land of 144 square meters (144 square meters in 144 square meters in Yju-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, Seoul, on September 9, 2016; hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 15, 2013, the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment that “K shall implement the transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on March 7, 1987 with respect to the instant land to J and the Plaintiffs.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Meanwhile, K had completed the procedure of ownership transfer registration on July 26, 2016, No. 85105, which was accepted on August 4, 2016, for the instant land to the Defendant, who is the ASEAN.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiffs K knew the fact that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land has been completed. Nevertheless, K disposed of the instant land to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in order to avoid the obligation of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of prescriptive acquisition. This act constitutes a tort, and the Defendant, who is also actively engaged in the act of K’s disposal, is also subject to cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant on the instant land as the registration invalidation of the cause for invalidation. 2) The Defendant did not know that the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against K and the prescriptive acquisition.

Considering the fact that there was a considerable interval between the judgment of prescriptive acquisition by the plaintiffs and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, the entire land was donated prior to the division of the land in this case, there was no change in rights after the registration of ownership transfer, and the present residential situation of the defendant, the registration

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2017.02.03 2016가단1405

-전주지방법원 2019.07.10 2019가합1557

-전주지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가합3312

-전주지방법원 2016.10.11 2015가단6274

-전주지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가단8465