logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가단8700
소유권이전청구권가등기말소
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Changwon District Court with respect to the land size of 277 square meters in Kimhae-si.

Reasons

1. After the lapse of January 10, 2002, the date of the reservation for sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the trade is completed without any separate declaration of intention, and the contract for sale and purchase, which the Plaintiff wishes to sell the forest of this case to the Defendant as of September 26, 2001, is signed as of September 26, 2001. The Plaintiff’s seal is affixed on the above contract; the Defendant paid KRW 17 million to D on September 26, 2001; the fact that the provisional registration of this case was made on September 27, 2001 with respect to the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff was not in dispute between the parties, or based on evidence No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5, respectively, can be acknowledged.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the provisional registration of this case should be cancelled as a registration of invalidation of cause made by forged documents.

However, if a third party is involved in the act of disposal rather than by the direct act of the former registered titleholder, the registration of the former owner shall be presumed to have been duly made even if the third party is the agent of the former registered titleholder. As such, the former owner was not entitled to represent the former owner, i.e., the third party, who requested the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void.

The third party bears the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration procedure, such as forging the registration document of the former owner, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). According to the health stand, the aforementioned evidence and witness D, and E’s testimony in this case, D, the Plaintiff’s dynamics, on behalf of the Defendant on September 26, 2001, did not make a sales promise with regard to the instant forest.

arrow