logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.05.28 2013가합1249
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased C had the Defendant, who is a child D, a male, E, and a female, who is a child.

B. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on May 27, 2008 with respect to each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table Nos. 14950 as of December 11, 2006, and with respect to each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 through 8 of the attached Table Nos. 73832 as of June 18, 2008, and with respect to each real estate listed in paragraph (9) of the attached Table Nos. 16082 as of May 30, 2008, and with respect to each real estate listed in paragraph (9) of the attached Table No. 16082 as of May 30, 2008, with respect to several shares of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 10 of the attached Table No. 28074 as of May 27, 2008, the maximum debt amount was determined as the defendant, each of whom was registered as the debtor0, 10.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supported the Plaintiff and continued to conduct the social welfare business that the Plaintiff had performed. The Plaintiff donated the real estate sales price to the Defendant, each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1, 6, 7, and F, G, H land, and each of the above land and the above land and the building on the ground of burden or cancellation. However, the Defendant did not properly support the Plaintiff, but did not use the purchase price for the social welfare business even after disposing of the I real estate in the above Guri-si, and did not use the purchase price for the social welfare business. As such, the Defendant sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1, 6, and 7 against the Defendant on the ground of cancellation of the onerous donation. 2)

arrow