(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.18 2014가단32262

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.18 2014가단32262

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B: (a) the registration of each transfer of ownership as described in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 8;

B. Defendant C shall be attached hereto.

Reasons

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the whole arguments, as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 8, defendant Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer due to each gift as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 9 and 10, defendant Eul sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 7 and 8, and after that, the defendant Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale as listed in the separate sheet No. 11 and 12 as listed in the separate sheet No. 11 and 12. However, even though the plaintiff did not receive a donation from the plaintiff for the real estate, the defendant Eul and C can be recognized that they completed the registration by forging the contract, etc. under the name of the plaintiff. Thus, each transfer of ownership registration listed in the separate sheet No. 11 and 12 shall be deemed null and void as the cause of each transfer of ownership registration becomes void as stated in the separate sheet No. 7 and 8.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to perform the registration of each transfer of ownership as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 8, Defendant C is obligated to perform the registration of each transfer of ownership as stated in the separate sheet No. 9 and 10, Defendant D is obligated to perform the registration procedure of each transfer of ownership as stated in the separate sheet No. 11 and

As to this, even if the registration of invalidity of the cause of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B and C is the registration of invalidity, each real estate was purchased with the funds actually borne by Defendant B and entrusted the name to the Plaintiff, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relationship, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendants' defense is

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.06.27 2018가단51174

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.02.12 2018가단105510

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.24 2014가합535419

-수원지방법원 2020.10.08 2019구합72862

-대전고등법원 2015.01.23 2013나6238