(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.12.23 2013가단5215

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2014.12.23 2013가단5215

소유권보존등기말소등기 등

Text

1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiffs’ assertion of the instant real estate was owned by the State on May 31, 1918 by the Plaintiff’s assistant L, and succeeded to the Plaintiffs after the Plaintiff died on September 15, 1940.

M had N et al. prepare a false certificate with respect to the purchase of the pertinent real estate from L even though there is no authority as to the instant real estate, M completed the registration of ownership preservation as to the instant real estate under the old Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest and Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969, Act No. 2111, effective, and hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) as the receipt No. 1035, July 26, 1971, and thereafter inherited and transferred to the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants should implement the registration procedure for registration of preservation of ownership or cancellation of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs.

2. The registration of initial ownership, which was made by the Special Assistance Act, shall be presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed by the same Act, and shall be presumed to have been in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, a person who seeks to seek the cancellation of registration of initial ownership, which was made by the above Special Assistance Act, has falsely or forged a certificate of guarantee and a confirmation under the above Special Assistance Act, which is a document attached to the change of title in the forestry

For other reasons, the assertion and proof that the registration of initial ownership was not lawfully made in accordance with the above special provisions should be made. However, if the other party is the person who has false entries in the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, or it has been proved to the extent that the substantive entries are not true, the presumption of the registration should be reversed. The degree of proof of the falsity of the guarantee certificate, etc. should be the degree of conviction of the judge.

Supreme Court Order 9 April 2009

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2017.05.31 2016가단14142

-대법원 1987. 10. 13. 선고 86다카2928 전원합의체 판결

-대법원 1991. 12. 27. 선고 91다14475 판결

-대구지방법원 2018.11.01 2017나314180

-대법원 1996. 10. 11. 선고 95다47992 판결