beta
Text
1. The first instance judgment against the defendant shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, has established a registration of establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of lease on a deposit basis”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff as follows: (a) with respect to the lease on a deposit basis; (b) 40,000,000 won for lease on a deposit basis; and (c) 18.87 square meters for the branch of the residential building (103); and (d) with respect to the registered lease on a deposit basis as of April 28, 1997; (b) however, E, the nominal owner of the registration of the instant lease on a deposit basis, did not have actually paid the lease deposit; (c) even if the lease on a deposit basis was paid, even if the lease on a deposit basis was not used for profit since 1995, the Plaintiff was obligated to cancel the registration of the lease on a deposit basis; (d) the heir was dead on April 10, 2008 and his heir could not be confirmed.
B. The Defendant asserts that, even if there is no evidence that E, the nominal owner of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on April 7, 2008, the inherited property belongs to the State only after going through the procedures under Articles 1053, 1056, and 1057-2 of the Civil Act according to the heir respect system, the Plaintiff’s filing a claim for cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis against the Defendant without going through such procedures is unlawful, since it is not against the person liable for registration.
2. Determination:
A. A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration against a person liable for registration, namely, a person who is not a person who loses his/her right or is not a person who is not a person (the title holder of registration or his/her general successor) due to the registration in the form of the registry, is illegal against a person who
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da90928 Decided July 23, 2015). B.