logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.11.10 2016가단16392
진정명의회복을 원인으로한소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The land indicated in the attached list of the plaintiff's assertion is owned by the plaintiff inherited to the land for which the plaintiff's prior consideration was given. Since the defendant made a registration of preservation of ownership without any cause, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name

2. Determination

A. A. A claim for registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is allowed in lieu of seeking cancellation of the registration against the current title holder in a way to restore the true title of registration, which was already registered in his/her future, or acquired by the person who acquired ownership pursuant to the law, by means of restoring the true title of registration. The claim for registration of ownership transfer and the claim for cancellation of registration of invalidation based on the restoration of the true title allowed in lieu of registration of cancellation are to restore the name of the true owner, and its purpose is substantially identical, and both claims are identical in its legal basis and nature as the claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership. Thus, even if the former takes the form of registration of transfer and the subsequent cancellation, the subject matter of lawsuit shall be deemed the same in substance. Therefore, if a final judgment against the losing party was rendered in the lawsuit for cancellation of registration of ownership, the res judicata effect shall also extend to the subsequent lawsuit for registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the true title (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da37894, Sept. 20,

Judgment

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff had already been filed with the Seoul Central District Court about the land listed in the separate sheet against the defendant, "this land is inherited by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant has completed registration of preservation of ownership on each of the above land without any title."

arrow