(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.08.30 2014가단6365

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) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.08.30 2014가단6365

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter "the building of this case"). Since the defendant occupies the building of this case without any title, it is obligated to deliver it to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant that purchased the instant building from Nonparty C, and the ownership transfer registration as to the instant building in the name of Nonparty C is null and void, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the owner of the instant building.

2. According to the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 27, 2014 with respect to the instant building, and C, on October 30, 2014, sold the instant building to the Plaintiff on the same day and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant building.

However, according to the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, a notary public belonging to the Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"), upon commission from E on September 30, 2013, assigned the building of this case owned by Eul in the presence of witness F and G, and sent out the building of this case owned by Eul in the presence of witness F and G, and read the contents of the testament to the deceased, witness F and G to approve and sign and seal the accuracy of the entries of each will (Article 33, 2013, hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"). C has completed a registration of transfer of ownership for reasons of testamentary gift on October 27, 2014, and C had completed a registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case on October 27, 2014. The deceased had been seriously affected by the reality awareness or behavior at the time of the preparation of the authentic deed of this case, and thereby, he could reasonably recognize the facts that he had no mental ability to determine the meaning or result of his will.

According to the above facts of recognition, the will of this case is null and void.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.06.17 2014가합845

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.31 2016가합38979

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2013.10.24 2012가합2265

-서울고등법원 2018.06.20 2017나2052291

-대구지방법원 2018.10.17 2017나317134