logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.07.24 2018가단53659
토지인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased, on January 20, 1990, KRW 5,440,00 from the deceased’s son E, a house without permission indicated in the share of KRW 151/1941 and claim on the ground (hereinafter “instant house”) among the share of KRW 151/1941 square meters in wooden City C forest land owned by the deceased (hereinafter “Before division”), and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on August 16, 1990, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,00,000 for shares of KRW 511/1941 out of the land before the said division.

Since then, on February 18, 1997, the registration of transfer of F's ownership was completed due to the inheritance by agreement division with respect to the shares of 1511/1941 of the pre-division land, and the Plaintiff requested F and E to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the said shares.

However, F and E have spent a lot of expenses for the repair of the instant housing, and they have demanded to pay KRW 9 million for the repair expenses, directors' expenses, etc.

Accordingly, on February 28, 1998, the Plaintiff agreed with F to pay F KRW 9 million to F, and paid the purchase price for the instant housing again by paying it in full.

On July 15, 1998, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to shares of 1511/1941 out of land before subdivision, and subsequently completed the registration of sole registration as to C forest land 1,216 square meters in the wooden City where the instant housing is located through partition of co-owned property, etc.

Ultimately, the plaintiff is the actual owner who purchased the house of this case, and the defendant who resides in the house of this case and occupies it is obligated to leave the house of this case.

2. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant housing solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff purchased the instant housing, the health account statement No. 5, the Plaintiff’s personal examination result, and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Gap 2, 2.

arrow