200 Ghana 103305 Requests for cancellation of ownership transfer registration

Kim, the plaintiff

Busan

Attorney Lee Do-young

1. Kim Pil;

Seoul

2. Unmanned;

Daegu

[Defendant-Appellant]

November 3, 2020

December 8, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against each party.

The plaintiff will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the Busan District Court No. 36826, August 29, 2019, in relation to each portion of the 1/4 shares of the defendant Kim Il-il, Yangsan-si 700, Yangsan-si, 700, 269m of the 1/3/4m of the account, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s division and the Defendants’ name are the same Kim ○ (○○) with the same Korean and Chinese name.

B. On July 1, 1938, the land category was changed to a road on December 1, 1955, but the land category was changed to a road on December 1, 1955. On January 7, 2003, the land category was changed to 700-97 square meters and the area was changed from 288 square meters to 269 square meters on July 11, 1938, the closed copy of the registration on the ownership transfer registration in the name of ○○○○ on July 11, 1938 was changed to 288 square meters on July 5, 1938, and the owner’s address was changed to 900 square meters on July 5, 193.

C. Meanwhile, on the former land cadastre of this case, the resident registration number of the owner Kim○ was indicated as '14*****-1************). However, on August 29, 2019, the Plaintiff’s Mai-si case was removed from the above resident registration number on the land cadastre of this case ex officio on August 29, 2019. D. On June 7, 1914, the Plaintiff’s Mai-si was born from the two Mai-ri-ri-ri, the plane captain’s articles of incorporation, and married on April 5, 1941. On March 29, 1984, the Plaintiff died on June 7, 1990. Meanwhile, on March 4, 1958, the Plaintiff was born from the two Mai-ri-ri-ri, the plane captain’s articles of incorporation.

E. From around November 2015, the Plaintiff paid the property tax on the instant land from around 2007, and the inheritor of the Plaintiff’s father Kim○-○ was divided by agreement that the Plaintiff would solely inherit with respect to the land of this case and the land of this case and the 700-3, 700-15, Yangsan-dong, Yangsan-dong, which was registered in the name of Kim○-dong on November 1, 2015. On March 4, 1900, the Defendants’ father Kim Jong-○ was born at the Busan-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 900 on June 5, 1938, and died on July 24, 197. Defendant Kim Jong-dong was reported to have been born at the Seocho-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 900 on July 17, 193.

G. On August 29, 2019, among the instant land, Defendant Kim Jong-il completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance (hereinafter “each of the instant land transfer registration”) regarding the shares of 3/4 shares, and the shares of 1/4 shares, as to the shares of 1/4 shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1 through 6 evidence (including a number), witness Song ○'s testimony, fact-finding results on the sending branch in Yangsan-si, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since Kim ○-○, registered as the owner in the register of the land of this case, was put by the plaintiff, the defendants

Each ownership transfer registration in the name of this case is invalid registration. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration in this case to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the land of this case through a division of inherited property by agreement.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the copy of the register and the plaintiff's reference are the same person

The Defendant’s exercise of the right to claim cancellation registration is an exercise of the right to claim cancellation registration, which is a real right based on ownership. The requirements for the occurrence of the right to claim cancellation registration, is a principal fact and must be asserted and proved in the lawsuit concerned. If it is not recognized that there is such right, the claim may not be accepted even if the registration of invalidation is to be cancelled under the name of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Meu550, Apr. 27, 1982; 2004Da5044, Sept. 28, 2005).In light of the following circumstances, the health room, the facts of recognition as seen earlier, the evidence as seen earlier, and the entire purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading, it cannot be concluded that the Kim○○○○ and the Plaintiff’s attached 00, which are recorded as the owner in the copy of the register of the land of this case, and the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff merely based on other evidence submitted.

① There is no objective evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s father Kim ○ was having an address in Busan Dong-dong, 900, which was recorded as the owner’s domicile in the copy of the land registry of this case. Rather, considering the date and place of the Plaintiff’s creation, the Plaintiff’s father Kim ○, who was born from two pages of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation in the plane captain-gun, was highly likely to reside in the above place. On the other hand, in light of the Defendants’ internal history of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s father Kim ○ and the fact that the Defendant Kim ○ was born in Busan Dong-dong on July 4, 193, 193, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s father Kim ○ was born in the early East-dong, Busan-dong, 900, the possibility of the Plaintiff’s father Kim ○ and the same person’s body recorded as the owner of the copy of the land register of this case’

② On September 3, 1948, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s father’s domicile was the same as the Plaintiff’s domicile around July 193, 1938.

③ The owner of the previous land subject to the change of the resident registration number of the owner registered on the land cadastre from January 1, 1979 to December 1, 1980 entered his resident registration number in the old land cadastre, but the resident registration number was recorded on the old land cadastre except the owner Kim○ name, but it cannot be confirmed that the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was recorded on the Plaintiff’s land cadastre, and even if the above resident registration number was registered after a party’s application or ex officio investigation, it is not possible to grant presumption of its ability.

④ Although the ownership transfer registration of the instant land in the name of Kim○○ is indicated as the grounds for registration, the Plaintiff does not have a registration right certificate or other objective data that can recognize the said grounds for registration.

⑤ From around November 2015, the Plaintiff paid the property tax on the instant land from around 2007, and its inheritors, including the Plaintiff, around November 2015, as to the instant land and Yangsan-dong 700-3, 700-15.

Even if a consultation on inheritance was held around November 2015, such circumstance alone is insufficient to readily conclude that Kim○, recorded as the owner on the register of the instant land register, was the same as the Plaintiff’s father.

(2) Sub-determination

Ultimately, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same person, which is registered as the owner of the Plaintiff’s and the instant land registry.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges fixed-term