beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.07.17 2018나63272

소유권말소등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the third to third to thirteen are used for the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 6, and the fact inquiry results about Franchi Office at the court of first instance and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of this case is null and void is without merit.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was issued with a certificate of personal seal impression on the ground that he/she purchased his/her automobile, but the Plaintiff was issued with a certificate of personal seal impression on November 24, 2008. The Plaintiff stated the name, date of birth, and address of Defendant B in the “user’s personal information” column of the said certificate of personal seal impression.

② In the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership, the documents were submitted to the effect that the certificate of registration was lost on behalf of the certificate of registration.

The presumption of legality of transfer of ownership is not reversed solely on the ground that the buyer reported the purchase price to a lower level than the actual one.

③ From November 25, 2008, about 10 years ago, the date of the registration of ownership transfer, the instant lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2018. Defendant B paid property tax on each real estate listed in the separate sheet during the said period, and completed the registration of mortgage and superficies creation on April 11, 201, and completed the registration of mortgage and superficies creation on May 4, 201.

However, according to the plaintiff's argument, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet was the whole property of the plaintiff, but before the plaintiff files the lawsuit of this case.