logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.05.01 2014나304625
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact-finding results and the whole purport of the oral argument on the grounds of the claim, Eul, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, was killed on May 11, 1941 while he owned 56 square meters in the Gyeong-gun B river B (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), and Eul (hereinafter "D"), the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's father, inherited the real estate in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 26, 1942. D died on December 6, 1953, the plaintiff acquired the real estate in this case as a new family head alone and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Article 2 of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the real estate in this case belongs, and the defendant, the defendant, the title of which was reverted to the Daegu District Court on June 19, 196, can be recognized as the ownership transfer of the real estate in this case (hereinafter "E").

According to the above facts, at the time of August 15, 1945, the real estate in this case was owned by D, a non-foreign person, and was not owned by the property devolving upon the State as prescribed by the Act on the Disposal of Property, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in this case completed by the defendant after treating the real estate as the property devolving upon the State is deemed as the registration invalidation of the cause.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the heir of D, is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the real estate of this case is owned by the Defendant, since the land category of the instant real estate is a river, and all of the rivers in the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8338, Apr. 6, 2007) are owned by the State.

However, the registration of ownership transfer of this case.

arrow