logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.04 2015나29168
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased D (hereinafter referred to as the “the Deceased”) completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the amount of KRW 350 million (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”) by the mortgagee E, the debtor F, the maximum debt amount, KRW 350,000,000,000 from the Cheongju District Court, No. 54035, Dec. 7, 2010, as to C forest land 44,851 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”).

B. On July 12, 201, 201, the Cheongju District Court G voluntarily held an auction on the instant forest land upon the motion of the public auction by the law firm that partially transferred the instant claim on the collateral security right.

C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant was awarded the instant forest land in KRW 270,00,100, and paid the price on December 20, 201. Of the above price and the cost KRW 280,000,000, the amount was deposited from the National Bank Fund Fund Account in the name of the Deceased, and the remainder KRW 140,000,000 was deposited from the deceased’s wife’s account.

On March 2, 2013, the Deceased died after having left his wife H, child I, and the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the share of 2/7, which is the inheritance ratio of the Plaintiff due to the cancellation of title trust, based on the premise that the deceased trusted the instant forest to the Defendant, and, in addition, the Plaintiff sought to pay the amount of money according to the inheritance ratio of the Plaintiff out of the light price as unjust enrichment return.

The court of first instance rendered a decision to dismiss both the primary claim and the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff withdraws the primary claim in the trial after the plaintiff appealed, so only the said conjunctive claim shall be considered as the subject of the trial for the first instance.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) lends the deceased’s name in the false name of the Defendant.

arrow