가등기말소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in records:
The plaintiff, as Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da215449, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter "provisional registration of this case"), which was completed on January 16, 2001 by the Gangnam-gu District Court registry office of Seoul, and sentenced the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on February 5, 2003. The plaintiff appealed as the above court 2003Na1164, but the above court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on November 13, 2003. The plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 203Da68123, but the plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2003Da68123, March 25, 2004, which became final and conclusive.
B. (1) The contents of the judgment subject to a judgment subject to a retrial (1) are the Plaintiff’s mother, taking into account the following: “The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s mother, who won the apartment of this case on October 15, 1981 and entered into a sales contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation for KRW 9,561,000 on October 26, 1981, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 26, 1981 with respect to the apartment of this case on August 27, 1985. The provisional registration of this case was made on the basis of a pre-sale agreement on January 16, 201, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s father C, their father, were residing in the apartment of this case from May 15, 1982.” The Plaintiff asserted as follows.
(A) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that “The instant provisional registration is null and void because there exists no pre-sale agreement, which is the cause of the instant provisional registration, or even if there exists any existence thereof, constitutes a false representation of conspiracy, and thus it is deemed null and void.” The respective statements in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, which seem consistent with the above alleged facts,