소유권말소등기
1. Of the part concerning the conjunctive claim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff falls under the following order to cancel.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that “1. Basic Facts are described in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Seoul Western District Court’s registration of ownership No. 32896, Sept. 5, 2016, which was received on September 5, 2016, is the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 11-5 and Eul evidence Nos. 11-5 and 1, the evidence Nos. 1-D (hereinafter "the deceased").
(3) As a donor, the Defendants are deemed to be the gift contract of September 1, 2016, stating that “the donor agreed to donate the instant real estate to a witness, and the witness accepted it.” (hereinafter “the gift contract of this case”).
(2) The presumption of transfer of ownership of this case cannot be deemed to have been duly prepared based on the deceased’s will, and as long as the authenticity of the gift contract of this case is denied due to the transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of ownership of this case’s transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer registration of ownership of this case’s transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of ownership of this case’s transfer of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of ownership of this case’s transfer registration of this case’s transfer of ownership of ownership of this case’s transfer of ownership
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da29568 delivered on September 22, 1998). However, there is no evidence to prove that the gift contract of this case was concluded between the deceased and the Defendants except for the gift contract of this case, so the Defendants among the transfer registration of ownership of this case.