logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.22 2017나67179
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the plaintiffs make a new determination as to the newly asserted contents in this court, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that the receipt number of registration prior to the destruction of name Y was not indicated in the registration for the restoration of the destruction of name Y, and that registration for the restoration of the destruction was made without attaching the registration certificate, and other official documents evidencing other rights were not found. As such, the Plaintiffs asserts that the legitimacy presumption of registration in name Y was broken.

However, it cannot be said that the previous registration was not accompanied by the certificate of right of the previous registration or an official document substituted therefor in the application for registration of recovery of destruction and loss, only with a statement stating the date of receipt and receipt number of the previous registration in the registration of recovery of destruction and loss, and once the registration of recovery of destruction and loss is recorded in the register, it is presumed that the registry official is legally treated (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1795, Oct. 14, 1980). In this case, inasmuch as the registration of recovery of destruction and loss is recorded in the register, barring any particular circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the registration certificate was not submitted solely on the ground that the receipt number of the registration before destruction and loss was not indicated in the registration of

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

arrow