logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2015.10.07 2015가단1263
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 2013, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on July 15, 2013, as the wife of C, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which was owned by C.

B. C died on July 26, 2013, and D died on December 14, 2014, and C and D’s father inherited each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C was de facto adopted at the time of birth to C and D, and C agreed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet would be transferred to the Plaintiff before birth, and D also agreed that on August 9, 2013, each real estate listed in the separate sheet was transferred to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2013, which was subsequent to the registration of transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, D concluded a donation contract or private donation contract with the Plaintiff on August 9, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendant, who is the inheritor, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a gift contract or a private gift contract has been concluded with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between D and the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of testimony and arguments of E, F, and G, circumstances contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion are acknowledged, such as the following: (a) one of the real estate owned by C in the future of G, which was actually adopted by C and D, did not cause the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff’s mother, after the death of C, found D’s house as a ground problem and was dispatched to the police.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow