logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.31 2015나11315
소유권이전등기말소등
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. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case is set forth in Article 2.

B. 1) The part of paragraph (1) is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following cases. [1] The lawsuit of this case is brought by a non-corporate association as an act of preserving property jointly owned by the defendant, who is the inheritor of AB, AC, etc., under the premise that the plaintiff trusted the title of each real estate listed in the attached list to AB, A, etc., and thus constitutes an act of preserving property jointly owned. The provision of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned is not applicable. Since a resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act is passed by a general meeting of members under Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act, or the articles of incorporation is required to go through the resolution of a

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da112299, 112305 Decided February 13, 2014, etc.). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, Article 17(3) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides matters concerning “property management” as the matters subject to the resolution of the general meeting. However, it is reasonable to deem that the act of preserving collective ownership property falls under the matters concerning “property management”. Accordingly, in order to be lawful in the instant lawsuit falling under the act of preserving collective ownership, the resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of clans should be required.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow