logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.07.09 2018가단9080
토지소유권확인 등
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was owned and managed by the deceased C on January 30, 1932, and sold KRW 860,000 to the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly D on October 27, 1949 without registration of ownership preservation. D paid the purchase price in full and managed the instant land. The Plaintiff received the donation of the instant land from D on January 13, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to claim registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of sale or acquisition by prescription.

The defendant is obligated to confirm that the land of this case is owned by the above C.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Since the Defendant’s main defense of this case’s land cadastre that the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of ownership is indicated to C as an assessment against E, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State is unregistered and the land is no registered titleholder in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registered titleholder is unknown, there is benefit of confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as denying ownership by a third party that was registered or recorded, and continuing to claim ownership by the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230815, Oct. 27, 2016). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the above legal principles: (a) evidence No. 1; (b) evidence No. 1; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings in the items in evidence No. 1 and No. 1; (d) the land of this case is indicated as being the circumstance of No. 3; and (e) the land of this case is a permanent domicile of the former registrant C, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the land of this case.

arrow