(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2013가단328501

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2013가단328501

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The instant real estate was originally owned by the network E, and the network E died on June 9, 2008, and F, Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, who were their wife, jointly succeeded to the instant real estate.

B. Of the instant real estate, Defendant B completed each inheritance registration on July 30, 2009 with respect to the share of 3/9, F, Defendant C, and D with respect to each of 2/9 shares.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the Silver, Silver, Silver, in January 1, 1999, at KRW 270 million, from the purchase price of KRW 170 million, and agreed that the plaintiff takes over the obligation to return the lease deposit of G, which was a tenant at that time, and that time, he paid the net E with the remainder of KRW 100 million. The defendants, co-inheritors of the deceased E, are liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 1, 199 with respect to co-ownership of each of the real estate of this case, which is the legal share of each of the real estate of this case.

3. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, and witness H's testimony, and according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 through 9, and evidence Nos. 12-1 through 13-13, the plaintiff holds a registration right to the real estate of this case under the name of the deceased E, and the plaintiff was living in the third floor of the real estate of this case until now after completing the move-in report of this case on February 26, 199, and was actually managing the real estate of this case, such as concluding the lease contract of this case with respect to the real estate of this case and returning the lease deposit deposit and paying property tax to the lessee, the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.02.07 2017가단203878

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.23 2016가합103018

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.11 2018가단5150173

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.05.30 2016가단51572

-창원지방법원 2021.02.09 2020가단113184