logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.02.23 2016가단111126
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 August 14, 1941, the registration and receipt of the Cheongju District Court Decision No. 8515, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D, which had a domicile in the Chungcheongbuk-gun C, was completed on August 14, 1941 with respect to the area of 1775 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”).

B. Since then, as to the land before subdivision, F, which is the deceased E, completed the registration of ownership transfer as the same registration and receipt No. 1651 on January 18, 1994 on the grounds of donation on May 1, 1978. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as the same registration on grounds of sale on March 31, 2010 and the receipt No. 4830 on April 29, 2010.

C. On March 7, 2013, the land before subdivision was divided into 617 square meters, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land constitutes the property devolving upon the land acquired by Japan, Japan, and became the Plaintiff’s ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the State. (2) Nevertheless, as to the instant land, F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation from Japan, D, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer from F on the ground of sale.

3) Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration made to the Defendant via F from D constitutes a registration invalidation of the cause, the Plaintiff’s genuine owner is demanding the Defendant to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name. B. The Defendant’s assertion that D is not a Japanese person but a father’s network, and thus, the instant land does not constitute the property devolving upon the State. As of August 9, 1945, regarding real estate in the Republic of Korea owned by Japan as of August 9, 1945, the “cases concerning the acquisition of property rights, which is a Japanese person, inside the ship,” (as of December 33, 1945, the U.S. Military Administration as of September 25, 1945).

arrow