소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The party’s assertion 1) Before the Plaintiff’s partition, the Plaintiff was divided into 5064 square meters (1652 square meters prior to C, 3412 square meters prior to D, and the previous 1652 square meters was combined with 44 square meters prior to E, and was now brought about.
The “land before subdivision” shall be referred to as “land before subdivision,” and the “instant land” shall be referred to as the “instant land” for which the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the Defendant’s future.
) The Plaintiff’s attached net F (Death on March 12, 1987, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).
A) The deceased was owned. G was residing in the vicinity of January 26, 1980 upon request for management of the land before the division and was permanently removed. However, G and the Defendant conspired in a cre in the absence of the deceased and completed the division of land before the division on September 8, 1981, which was conducted on June 28, 1984. The Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of the former Real Estate (Act No. 3562, Jun. 28, 1984; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).
Pursuant to the foregoing, G completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale of D, a part of the land before subdivision, which was part of D prior to D, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day as the receipt No. 10916, Jun. 28, 1984 for the instant land on the grounds of sale as of December 9, 1973 (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership”).
2) As such, the Defendant purchased the instant land from the deceased without purchasing the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as if he purchased the instant land by forging the seal, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land, which was completed with the deceased’s heir, to the Plaintiff, the real owner of the instant land. (2) Defendant’s mother-child lent considerable money to the deceased. However, as the deceased was unable to pay the said money, the Defendant’s mother-child borrowed the money to the deceased, under consultation with G that purchased the deceased’s land from the deceased and the deceased, and as such, was at the present time before