(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.06 2012가단111577

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.06 2012가단111577

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s assertion

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant B, C, D, E, F (hereinafter referred to as “former Defendants”) and the deceased J (Defendant G, H, and I shall be the heir of the deceased J), and the said judgment became final and conclusive upon winning a favorable judgment on November 14, 2006, by filing a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of Attached 1’s attached property as the court’s 2004Gahap20185.

B. On August 20, 2010, K filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on August 20, 2010, with the above winning judgment as the executive title, by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court receipt No. 28857, Dec. 22, 2003). On September 3, 2010, K rejected the application for registration on the ground that the address recorded in the former Defendants and the deceased JJ’s judgment and the address indicated in the closed register are not identical, and thus, its identity cannot be recognized. The Appointed filed an objection against the disposition of the registrar under this Court No. 2010, May 51, 201, and filed an appeal under this Court No. 2011Ra120, but the registration was not completed.

C. Although it is clear that the Defendants, the network J and the Defendants and the network J in the above winning judgment are the same persons, the above winning judgment alone cannot be completed. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek a new winning judgment where the addresses of the Defendants and the network J are stated in the above winning judgment, or the last address is stated in the registry address.

2. Unless exceptional cases exist, such as where the subject matter of a lawsuit prior to or after the determination of the legality of the instant lawsuit is identical, the original of the judgment is destroyed, or where the content of the judgment is not specified, and there is no other appropriate method for interrupting prescription, etc., the subsequent lawsuit instituted by the winning party is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are part of the plaintiffs.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.06 2015나22136

-서울중앙지방법원 2015. 11. 6. 선고 2015나22136 판결

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.05.31 2016가단13172

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.04.05 2016가단76715

-대법원 1998. 7. 10. 선고 97다45402 판결