logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.02.13 2017가단532022
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendants are limited to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2016 with respect to the 294 square meters in Seo-gu, Gwangju.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of an independent party's lawsuit

A. (i) An independent party intervenor's assertion is a literature naturally formed by the independent party intervenor at the time of G, the grandchildren I (No. J) of G, 37 years of age H, as a medium time group.

The real estate stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by an independent party intervenor, and title trust was held against 12 persons, including Nonparty K, etc. (other than the Defendant, all the remaining co-owners died).

D. On January 6, 2018, the independent party intervenor decided to terminate the title trust of the Defendants at the extraordinary general meeting of the independent party intervenor. As such, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the termination of title trust on the date the duplicate of the instant complaint concerning the instant real estate was served on the Defendants.

B. The Plaintiff’s main defense and its determination (i.e., the Plaintiff’s main defense L/S) as the representative of the independent party intervenor, and the instant independent party participation lawsuit was filed, but there is no evidence to deem L/S was legally elected as the representative of the independent party intervenor.

An extraordinary general meeting held by an independent party participant shall not be deemed a valid resolution due to a problem such as the person holding the convening authority, the procedure for notifying the convocation of meetings, etc.

Therefore, the lawsuit by the independent party of this case is unlawful.

⑵ 판단 ㈎ 비법인사단인 종중이 그 명의로 소를 제기하기 위해서는 총회의 결의를 거쳐야 하고, 종중의 대표자가 총회의 결의 없이 종중 명의로 제기한 소송은 소제기에 관한 특별수권을 결하여 부적법하며(대법원 2007. 7. 26. 선고 2006다64573 판결 등 참조), 총유물의 보존에 있어서는 공유물의 보존에 관한 민법 제265조의 규정이 적용될 수 없고, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 민법 제276조 제1항의 규정에 따라 사원총회의 결의를 거쳐야 하므로, 법인 아닌 사단인 종중이 그 총유재산에 대한 보존행위로서...

arrow