Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant 1 sold real estate to the Plaintiff on December 7, 1947, and in particular, as of December 7, 1947, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate was not owned by Defendant 1, but was sold again by Defendant 1 to the Plaintiff on the ground that Defendant 1 purchased the real estate from Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 on the ground of the lower court’s allegation that the real estate was not owned by Defendant 1 for the first time and on December 7, 194, and that Defendant 1 purchased the real estate from Defendant 1 for the first time and for the fourth time and for the fourth time and fourth time and later, Defendant 1’s allegation that the real estate was purchased from Defendant 1 for the fourth time and fourth time and fourth time and that the real estate was not owned by Defendant 1 for the fourth time and fourth time and fourth time and that the lower court’s allegation that the real estate was not owned by Defendant 1 for the first time and fourth time and the fourth time and fourth time and that Defendant 1 was not for the first time and fourth July.

However, according to the records of the case, at the hearing of the court below on June 4, 1952 by a clerk, the plaintiff representative stated that the clerk 1948 among the grounds for the plaintiff's claims is a clerical error of 1947 years for clerk 1947, which is a clerical error in the clerk's 1947. In addition, in the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the non-party 1 transferred the above case to the defendant 1 as a substitute payment, and agreed that the transfer registration shall be made directly by the co-defendant who is the former owner, and the plaintiff purchased the above case from the defendant 1 on December 7, 1948 by the defendant 1 who is the former owner, and there is no omission of judgment like the theory of lawsuit that the plaintiff purchased the above case from the defendant 1 on December 7, 1948.

The judgment of the court of first instance held that it is impossible for Defendant 1 to recognize the fact of the sale of real estate in collusion with Defendant 2, who is the wife of the first instance court, and that this case was purchased from Defendant 2 on January 21, 1948, and that it was sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 to purchase and sell the real estate under his name, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his name. However, the testimony of Nonparty 2 and five witnesses is the most important part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the fact of the sale of the real estate between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 without mentioning it, it is impossible for the court of first instance to recognize the fact of the sale of the real estate by the witness, etc. as the most important part of the examination of the court of first instance, and it is impossible for the court of first instance to recognize the fact of the sale of the real estate in collusion with Defendant 2 as the most important part of the judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize that it would be the most unlawful for Defendant 1 and the joint Defendant 2.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant 2 purchased the real estate in this case directly from the co-defendant who is the former owner, or that he received a donation from Defendant 1, even as the former co-defendants of the original judgment, and eventually, Defendant 2 cannot be considered as a registration of invalidity which lacks the cause of alteration of a right, since it is obvious that he has no substantial right such as load, etc. to the real estate in this case and it is not a registration of invalidity which lacks the cause of alteration of a right, even though the market price of evidence as to the sale of a paper by Defendant 1 or between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 is not sufficient.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is that the registration of ownership transfer from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 was made on behalf of the original registration duty to be made against Defendant 1, i.e., the registration was made effective, unless there is any assertion or proof between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and that the registration is made based on due care for the object. Even if Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not express their intent to transfer real rights, if the registration of ownership transfer was made with Defendant 1’s consent, Defendant 2 cannot be seen as completely performing his duty to register with Defendant 1. Thus, Defendant 1 again did not have the right to request registration again against Defendant 1, on behalf of Defendant 1, and at the same time, Defendant 1 did not have the right to request registration against Defendant 1 on behalf of Defendant 1, even if the sale between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1 was made on behalf of Defendant 1 on behalf of Defendant 1.

However, the plaintiff, the owner of the real estate in this case against defendant 2, who is the owner of the real estate due to the registration of invalidity of the cause as shown in the preceding paragraph, cannot be seen as the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and the right to claim the registration of transfer transfer on behalf of the co-defendants of the court below, defendant 1, on behalf of the defendant 1. Thus, the appeal in this case is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 401

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)