logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.09 2019나66964
토지인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3,445 square meters prior to the Jeon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land No. 1 based on sale on May 30, 1995.

B. F completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 2, 201 with respect to the land of 2,723 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Jeon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on August 12, 201, with respect to the instant land No. 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around 1978 that the Plaintiff sold D the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

As a result of the land survey conducted at the time of sale, among the land No. 2 of this case, the land of this case included a lot No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the land No. 2 of this case.

Since then, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with D around 1982 on the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 of this case, and during that process, the land in this case, which was part of the land No. 1, was included in the area of the land No. 2 of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D F, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed again to the Defendant.

However, as part of the land No. 1 of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not sell or exchange the land to D.

Ultimately, the land in the dispute of this case is owned by the plaintiff. Since the defendant illegally occupies the land in the dispute of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land in the dispute of this case to the plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance based on his ownership.

B. Where the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on the judgment real estate, special circumstances exist.

arrow