2013Na3941 Registration, etc. of transfer of ownership

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Jeong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Kim Ho-ho

1-. B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10. K;

11. L;

12. M:

13.N

14.0

15.P

16. Q.

17.R

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

32.g

Defendant 1, 11 through 18’s attorney full-time employed by the defendant

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Da15618 Decided July 17, 2013

April 8, 2015

May 13, 2015

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the U.S. District Court's intermediate registry office with respect to Defendant B, which completed on March 20, 2004 by Defendant C, D, E, G, H, H, J, K, T, U, V, V, W, X, Z, A, B, b, d, d, d, e, and f are revoked.

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the Ulsan District Court’s Busan District Court’s vice registry office against Defendant B shall dismiss the part of the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed on March 20, 2004 as the receipt No. 20245.

B. Defendant C, D, E, G, H, K, T, U, V, W, X, X, A, b, D, e, among the 48 square meters in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, A, B, - - - , B, d, B, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, d, in sequence with each of the 81 square meters (in addition, 2, as to each of the shares on the 81 square meters in its name.

2. The Plaintiff’s remaining appeals against Defendant B and all appeals against Defendant L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, F, I,Y, Y, C, and G are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, F, I, Y,Y, c, and g shall be borne by the Plaintiff. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, D, E, G, H, J, J,K, T, U, V, W, X, Z, A, B, b, D, e, and F shall be borne by the said Defendants, respectively.

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Defendant S: Nonparty h, Defendant B, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, and J

42,075/53,856 shares in the Jeju-dong 48m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”)

The end of the registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 46647 of the receipt on June 19, 2003 by the Busan District Court Central Registry;

procedures for filing a suit,

3. Defendant B:

A. Ulsan District Court, etc. with respect to the share of 42, 075/53, and 856 out of the instant land to Defendant S

The registration of ownership transfer completed on June 19, 2003 by the receipt No. 46648 and the registration office 2004.

3. Each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 20245 of the receipt:

B. For Defendant C with respect to the share of 5,049/53,856 out of the instant land, registration by Ulsan District Court

procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 55437 of July 19, 2003:

4. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, T, U, V, W, g, K, X, Y, Z, Z, A, B, c, c, c, c, e, e, f, L, M;

N,O, P, Q, and R are indicated in Appendix 1 Map 3, 4, -, 1, 2, c. of the instant land on the Plaintiff;

4. Onboard connecting each point of 5, 5, 6, 7, and 3 in sequence (attached Form 2 with respect to part 81 square meters in part).

ownership on November 1, 1994 for each share by their name; ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription;

procedures for the registration of transfer of rights:

Ed. each performance.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “A” in Section 1 of Section 7 of the first instance judgment in Section 7, “B of Section 7, and Section 16 of Section B of Section B of Section 16 (hereinafter “instant part of the land in dispute”) means “A”; “B” in Section 18 of Section 2, No. 18, “B” in Section 19, No. 19, “V” in Section 20 of Section 6, “V” is the same as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment except for the removal of Section 1, “S.” and “S.” in Section 420 of Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for cancellation of registration for change of ownership

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 5-1, the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 20245), which was received on March 20, 2004 by the Ulsan District Court, was the registration of correction of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “registration of correction of this case”) completed on June 19, 2003 by receipt No. 46648, can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, the supplementary registration of correction of ownership transfer registration belongs to the existing principal registration and is integrated with the principal registration, and it is not a new registration separate from the principal registration. Thus, in case where the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of correction completed thereby is null and void, only cancellation of the above principal registration should be made, and even if the additional registration based thereon is not separately requested for cancellation, if the principal registration is cancelled ex officio, the claim for cancellation of the above additional registration is an unlawful claim without benefit of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4903 Decided April 13, 2001).

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction of this case in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the remainder of the plaintiff's claims

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From around 1950 to around September 1972, P sold the part of the instant case (b) to 1, among those who occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intent to own it. On November 1, 1974, 1974, the instant part (b) was owned by constructing and owning the instant building on the ground of the section (b) of the instant case, and thus, the prescriptive acquisition was completed at least on November 1, 1994.

(2) On April 18, 2012, 1: (a) on April 18, 2012, 1: (b) on the part of the instant case, m to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period; (b) m to n; and (c) n respectively assigned this to the Plaintiff, upon entering into an agreement on interim registration; and (d) delegated the Plaintiff with the authority to notify the assignment of claims

(3) At the time of completion of the prescriptive acquisition for the instant part (b) of 1, the persons listed in Attachment 3 of the judgment of the first instance, who are the minors of the instant part (b) had been aware of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period of 1, and conspired with Defendant S, B, etc. in collusion with the first instance judgment in order to avoid the obligation to transfer ownership in order to avoid the obligation to transfer ownership.

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, D, E, H, J, K, T, U, V, W, X, Z, A, B, d, d, e, and F (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”)

The 18 persons, including Defendant C, were not present on the date of pleading even though they were served with the notice of date without using the method of service by public notice, and were not present on the date of pleading, and thus, they were deemed to have led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s allegation under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure

According to the above facts, the registration of transfer of each of the rights listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the claim for the transfer of ownership in the future of Defendant S, B, and C is made to avoid the obligation of the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription of 1, so it is null and void because it is contrary to good morals and other social order. Accordingly, at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription of 1, 18 of Defendant C et al., the owner of the part of this case (b) at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription of 1, the Plaintiff who acquired the above right to claim transfer of ownership through o, has the obligation to implement the registration procedure of transfer of ownership on November 1, 1994 with respect to each of the rights on each of the rights on the name of the Plaintiff as the original owner.

C. Determination as to the claims against Defendant B, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, F, I,Y, C, and G (hereinafter the remaining Defendants)

The remaining Defendants asserted that the claim for the transfer registration of ownership was not occurred on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, as the other Defendants 1 occupied the part of the instant case without permission.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the part (b) of this case was purchased from P on September 1972 and the possession was commenced. At the time of September 1972, 1972, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the defendants, and that there was no legal act between 0 and 00 and 0, and that there was no legal act between 0,000 and 0,000 and 00,000,000,000 won won won won won won won won won won won won, and there was no other legal act between 0,000 won and 0,000 won won won, and there was no other legal act between 0,000 won and 10,000 won won, and there was no other legal act between 0,000 won and 10,000 won, and thus, the part (b) of this case's possession is reasonable.

Therefore, the presumption that the portion of this case (b) was occupied with the intention to own was broken, and there is no evidence to prove that the portion of this case (b) was occupied with the intention to own it, and thus, the remaining Defendants’ assertion against the Plaintiff is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction in this case against Defendant B is dismissed by incidental law, and since the plaintiff's remaining claims against Defendant C, etc. 18 among the plaintiff's remaining claims are well-grounded, they are accepted, and the remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed by lack of reasonable grounds. Since the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction in this case and the part against Defendant C, etc. 18 among the judgment of the court of first instance are inappropriate for this conclusion, it is revoked, and the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction in this case is dismissed and the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction in this case is dismissed as well as the claim for cancellation of the registration of correction in this case against 18 persons, such as Defendant C, etc., are ordered to implement the registration procedure of ownership transfer as seen in Section 3(b). The remaining appeal against the

Judges Choi Sung-sung

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judges Kim Jong-soo