logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2013.03.28 2012재가합13
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The protocol subject to quasi-examination shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff (quasi-Appellant)'s claim is dismissed in entirety.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. On January 18, 2012, the fact that the record of acceptance (hereinafter “the record of acceptance”) was prepared on January 18, 201, stating that the representative of the defendant K appears and all claims of the plaintiffs are accepted on the third day for pleading of January 18, 2012, in relation to the case where the plaintiffs filed against the defendant for the establishment of the record of quasi-deliberation 201Ga1479, which was filed against the defendant

2. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 16-2, Eul evidence No. 21-2, Eul evidence No. 21-2, and Eul evidence No. 222 as to the existence of the grounds for quasi-examination, it is recognized that the non-party K at the time of the preparation of the written evidence of this case, which was the representative of the defendant, accepted the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant without obtaining special authorization from the defendant clan pursuant to Articles 64, 52, and 56(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. This constitutes a ground for quasi-examination under Articles 461 and 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, the quasi-examination of this case is justified.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) On November 29, 1946, the non-party N, the decedent of the Plaintiff A, the deceased L, the deceased M, the deceased M, and the Plaintiff B, filed a registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 194 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On November 20, 1946, the Defendant filed a registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 1946 on the said real estate (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”).

(2) On October 23, 1974, the network N succeeded to the respective property of Non-Party A, Non-Party A, Non-Party D, Network J, Network M, Plaintiff B, who is his wife, and the network M succeeded to the respective property of Non-Party P, who died on December 16, 1977. The network M succeeded to the respective property of the Plaintiff, the network L, the deceased on July 7, 1980, and succeeded to the respective property of the Plaintiff C, D, and E. As the network L died on January 5, 203.

In addition, the deceased J died on November 29, 2012 and is the wife.

arrow