registration shall consist of a joint ownership registration regardless of the partnership business, and shall be springed by a joint ownership registration only

It is reasonable to view that the presumption power of "joint ownership" was reversed with the registration that was made without connection with the joint business, and that the registration of "joint ownership" that only owns shares without the personal relationship between the plaintiffs was made.

2011 Ghana 28151 Seizure and cancellation of registration

Lee Dong-A et al.

Korea

December 6, 2011

February 10, 2012

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' answer to the lawsuit fees.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of each registration of each seizure completed on November 10, 1997 by the receipt No. 92959 of the same registry office with respect to the portion of the plaintiff B among the third real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 as of April 12, 1996 as to the portion of the plaintiff B among the 1 and 2 real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 1984, 1/2 shares in the attached list No. 27329 regarding shares in the 1/2 shares in the 1/2 shares in the 1/2 shares in the 1/2 shares in the 1984, and 1/2 shares in the 3 shares in the 1/2 shares in the 1/2 shares in the 3 shares in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real property in this case") in the 2730th of May 23, 1984, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as "registration of combination of shares in this case") was completed as the plaintiffs and 3 persons in this CC.

B. In addition, among the 1 and 2 real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 and 2, the registration of seizure (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") was completed on April 12, 1996 with respect to the Plaintiff B's share in the attached list No. 21103, which was received on April 12, 1996, and with respect to the Plaintiff B's share in the attached list No. 3 real estate listed in the attached list, with the same registry office No. 92959, Nov. 10, 1997, which was the right holder

.

C. Meanwhile, thisCC died on March 10, 1994.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 2

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs acquired 112 parts of the real estate of this case by the plaintiffs as a result of the death of one of the joint owners, and the seizure by the disposition on default against one of the joint owners is not permitted. As such, the seizure registration of this case against the defendant is null and void, and thus, the registration of this case is sought cancellation of the seizure registration of this case against the defendant by asserting that the seizure registration of this case is void. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the registration of this case is valid registration in accordance with the relation of substantive rights, and therefore, the seizure registration of this case is asserted to the purport that it is valid.

B. Determination

"The attachment registration of this case is presumed to be the combination of real estate shares of this case with the plaintiffs, and the attachment disposition of the shares of this case is prohibited. Thus, the attachment registration of this case is deemed to be invalid unless there are special circumstances. Following all, the attachment registration of this case is deemed to be effective in accordance with the substantive rights relationship. It is established pursuant to the provisions of the law, such as contracts of the same company and mining right holders, or joint ownership registration of this case. As to this case, it is acknowledged that the above registration of this case is valid in the name of the plaintiffs 3 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the above 4 to 6, and that the above registration of this case was completed in the name of the plaintiffs 1 to 6, and the plaintiffs 1 to 1 to 6, the registration of this case was completed in the name of the above joint ownership registration of this case, claiming that the actual owners of each of the real estate of this case were the joint ownership registration of this case, and that the plaintiffs 1 to 1 to 6, the above registration of this case had already been filed against the plaintiffs 1 to 6.

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.