(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.24 2018나2071329

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) 서울고등법원 2019.10.24 2018나2071329

소유권보존등기말소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” to Chapter 7, 13, 13, and 13, 7, 13, 13, 13, 7, 13, 13, 13, 13, 200, 200, 30

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

[Supplementary Rule] No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 3, 4, 5" shall be deleted.

Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance court under the top part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance, "Defendant L" shall be added to "L" (the trade name before and after the change: AC) and before and after the change.

The "Defendant L" of 10,11 of the table 2, 5, and 10 at the bottom of the top part of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied to "L".

In the 13th and 7th of the judgment of the first instance, each "this Court" shall be incorporated into "Seoul Central District Court".

From 13th to 13th of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be followed:

"A state in which Defendant M, N,O, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and AA have completed the registration of each seizure, provisional seizure, and provisional disposition of each real estate listed in attached Table 2 list (1) shall be the state in which each real estate listed in attached Table 3 list (2) is registered by Defendant M, X,Y, Z, and AA."

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In return for performing the reconstruction project in this case with the owner of the instant building, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire 18 households in general, including each real estate listed in attached Tables 2 and 3 among ADdong and AEdong (hereinafter “instant real estate”). After that agreement, the Plaintiff completed the reconstruction project in this case and subsequently acquired the instant real estate in original condition, since ADdong and AEdong, including the instant real estate, have independence in structural use.

Nevertheless, the registration of preservation of ownership of the invalidity of the cause has been completed in the name of the owner of the instant real estate.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.12.19 2017나37333

-서울고등법원 2019.11.14 2019나2015876

-서울고등법원 2019.07.04 2019나2004562

-수원고등법원 2020.10.22 2019나21725

-서울고등법원 2019.05.09 2018나2057552