(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2014.02.05 2013가단7369

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2014.02.05 2013가단7369

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 1, 1959, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of J was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list of basic facts (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On June 25, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed because some of the inheritors of J and Defendant C were to own 1/7 shares on the instant real estate due to the inheritance by division as of June 14, 2008. On the same day, the entire co-ownership was transferred in the future of Defendant Incorporated Partnership Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nonghyup”), the maximum debt amount, KRW 60 million on the instant real estate, and the registration of creation of superficies with superficies with superficies as of Defendant Nonghyup with superficies were completed, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Plaintiff under the title trust agreement with the Defendant J, but the instant real estate was registered under the name of the J, upon the death of the J, Defendant C and the appointed parties (hereinafter “Defendant C et al.”) sold the instant real estate to Defendant B in violation of the Plaintiff’s title trust agreement. Defendant B and the Defendant A agreed to establish a collateral security and superficies with the Plaintiff agricultural cooperative. At the time, Defendant A and the Defendant Nonghyup actively participated in the Defendant C et al.’s tort with a well-known knowledge that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff and was not sold through legitimate procedures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration in the name of the Defendants was null and void in its entirety, and primarily, Defendant C et al. filed for the registration of ownership transfer with respect

Plaintiff

Attorneys are taking the ancillary claim as Defendant B, not Defendant B, the current owner of the conjunctive claim.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2011.10.12 2011가합107

-인천지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단238099

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.25 2016가단71269

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.06 2016가단12703

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가합574620