logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014나42836
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 1921, the registration of ownership was made in the name of H on February 5, 1921 with respect to the land of the F 2,479m2 (hereinafter “Before subdivision”). On January 25, 1924, the registration of ownership transfer was made on January 15, 1924 in the name of eight persons, including I and G, and on December 3, 1927, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 21, 1924 in the name of J with respect to the shares of I among the land before subdivision.

B. On August 28, 1981, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on January 5, 1969 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (No. 3094) with respect to the land before subdivision.

(hereinafter referred to as the "registration of transfer of ownership of this case").

Before subdivision, land was replaced with K 728 square meters and E 1,491 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) around February 23, 1985.

On August 13, 2002, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case on the same day.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9-2, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the fact inquiry results of the fact inquiry conducted on April 25, 2014 to the head of the wife at the time of the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant supplementary intervenor with respect to the land in this case and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant is invalid. The plaintiffs have succeeded to 1/8 of G's co-ownership shares in this case among G's land as the capital loss, respectively, 1/2. Thus, the defendant is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the restoration

B. (1) The Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer, Etc., and the Act.

arrow