logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.09.15 2016나34210
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The independent party intervenor's appeal against the defendant is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court is admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following addition. Thus, it is citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Supplementary Part] The 8th of the 8th of the 8th judgment of the first instance court added the “part of the witness K’s testimony” to the “part of the witness I”, and the following is added to the 8th judgment of the first instance court after the “application for participation of the independent party”.

â……………………… appears to have been transferred the name of the defendant without the donation of the instant building to the intervenor who had been established and maintained from around 1960 after the establishment of a new foundation with the defendant â……………………………], in the view of the fact that the instant building was donated to the foundation,

2. Thus, the intervenor's claim against the defendant must be dismissed as there is no ground.

The judgment of the first instance court is just in conclusion, and the intervenor's appeal against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow