logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.10 2017가단5185936
명의신탁해지로인한소유권이전등기청구등
Text

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff I 4 years of age J, 5 years of age K, 6 years of age L, 7 years of age M, N, andO as joint lines and consisting of men and women of 200,000 or more in the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff seeks the Defendants to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of provisional registration on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list, which was managed by the fleet and managed by the fleet, and seek damages against Defendant B who arbitrarily disposed of Plaintiff’s clan property.

B. The plaintiff is not a clan unique to its own meaning, but a clan comprised of the clans residing in the Seoul metropolitan area and therefore is not eligible for the plaintiff.

In addition, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is filed without complying with the general meeting convening procedure.

2. Determination

A. 1) The unique meaning of a clan is a naturally occurring family organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and enhancing friendship between their descendants and the descendants, and even if there is no special organization, it is established by the death of the common ancestor at the same time as the descendants of the common ancestor, and some of the members of the common ancestor shall not be arbitrarily excluded from the members of the clan. In addition to the clan within its unique meaning, if a clan group within a certain scope of the descendants of the common ancestor is established as a social organization and engages in independent activities while owning and managing its own property, its substance is not denied, but it is different from its unique meaning (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178, Jul. 21, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1178, Jan. 10, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da4617, Jun. 6, 2017).

arrow