logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.22 2019구합73247
묘지이전명령처분 취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Gwangju City Bri (hereinafter “Bri”) was designated as a “natural green belt area designated as a development restriction zone pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”), and was designated as a water source protection zone pursuant to the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act around July 9, 1975.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s mother’s death on July 13, 2004, the land on which 1/4 shares of the instant land, which was owned by DoD, were owned by 1/4 shares with his own wholesalers, was “2,420 square meters before the Gyeonggi-do F, Gwangju-gun (hereinafter “Before subdivision”), but thereafter, the land before subdivision was “Briri-si (hereinafter “Bri-si omitted”) as of October 16, 2015 according to the change in the name of the administrative district.

A person who jointly inherited B shall complete the registration of ownership transfer as to 2/36 shares out of the land in this case through the partition of co-owned property on October 8, 2010.

On or after the death of D on July 13, 2004, the Plaintiff, G, and H were co-inheritors, who are their spouse E and children. The Plaintiff, G, and H filed a lawsuit against the co-inheritors for the division of co-ownership of the land before the division (Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Gadan31537) (Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Gadan31537). On or around July 1, 2010, the conciliation was concluded, and the land before the division is divided into four parts, namely, “F, L, M, and C” and the part to be used as road parts, “N (132m2m2”).

After that, on August 10, 2010, the deceased D’s co-inheritors completed the registration of ownership transfer by co-ownership corresponding to their shares in respect of 1/4 shares among the land in this case, which was owned by the deceased D.

(See Evidence A Nos. 2 and 3). After death of his father E on June 2015, the Plaintiff installed one grave of the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the instant land and installed one grave of the size of 87 square meters.

arrow