logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2017.05.30 2015가단6959
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Daegu District Court with respect to shares 11/13 of each real estate listed in Attachment List 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts C owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant 1 real estate”) on May 15, 1996, and died on May 15, 1996, and the instant 1 real estate was inherited to the denyingr as the 2/13 share of 3/13 shares, E, F, Plaintiff, Defendant, and G, respectively.

Since then, D's death on August 24, 1998, the share of D-3/13 among the real estate No. 1 of this case, and each of the real estate No. 2 of the attached Table No. 4 of D owned (hereinafter "the real estate No. 2 of this case") was inherited on August 15, 1997 to the heir of the deceased deceased deceased E with 1/3 shares, 1/3 shares to F, and 1/3 shares to the Plaintiff.

(1) The Defendant and G’s relatives do not have any dispute over the facts of H, not D. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the status as the inheritor of D. Meanwhile, on October 13, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “registration of this case”) under the old Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) on January 20, 1995, based on the letter of guarantee that the Defendant purchased the real estate from C and D on January 20, 1995, its survival, from January 20, 1995; on the real estate of this case No. 1, the Daegu District Court, the registration office of the Republic of Daegu District Court, and the registration office of registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “registration of this case”) under No. 7627, Oct. 13, 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that registration Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is invalid in accordance with the Act on Special Measures by false guarantee. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration.

(b).

arrow