logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.09.21 2016나554
소유권이전등기 말소청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "(The defendant asserts that, at the time of commencement of possession of the land in this case on October 10, 197, E, the deceased C, at the time of commencement of possession of the land in this case, has not submitted data as to whether he had the right to dispose of the land in this case at the time of commencement of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, etc.)", except for the 5th to 13th to 11th, the 5th to 7th 11th th, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance. Thus, as to this case, it appears that the plaintiff's new domicile was used at the first instance court on February 1, 197 to 5th to 4th to 5th to 5th to 5th, the plaintiff's new domicile in this case, as seen above, the plaintiff's new domicile in this case's name was changed to 7th to 5th to 9th to 5th to m.

(3) Around 1956, the Defendant asserted that the land of this case was purchased from the deceased’s mother C and donated it to the Defendant, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed upon request from the deceased, the South-North of the deceased C, around 1977. However, at the time of the deceased’s death, E’s inheritance was limited to 3/11 (13.6%) and the consent of other co-inheritors was not obtained.

arrow