(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.07.14 2015가단4135

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.07.14 2015가단4135

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 8, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty C with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, and on April 10, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant for sale.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty D due to inheritance on March 5, 1990, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty E on October 18, 2007 due to the sale on October 18, 2007, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on July 9, 2013 due to the sale on July 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's primary purport of the claim is that the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff's father or mother, and since the plaintiff's parent agreed to transfer it to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to register the ownership transfer of each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff's parent, not the nominal owner of the ownership transfer registration, or that the plaintiff was agreed to transfer it to the plaintiff.

(B) No evidence exists to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate on April 10, 2007 and July 18, 2013, as stated in the Plaintiff’s purport of the claim.

The plaintiff's judgment as to the preliminary claim was completed by occupying each of the real estate in this case, and thus, the plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to each of the above real estate on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff occupied the above real estate for not less

3. The plaintiff's main and ancillary claims in this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2020.07.14 2019가단202070

-대구지방법원안동지원 2020.06.23 2019가단23862

-서울남부지방법원 2019.02.15 2017가단230080

-창원지방법원 2015.07.01 2014나8893

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2017가단5233620