소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the first and second conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a child of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), who died on March 25, 1993, and the Defendant is the birth of the deceased.
B. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed on May 24, 1989, No. 12573, which was received on May 24, 1989, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet that was owned by the deceased (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim made on November 3, 2015 is not related to the same living facts or the same economic interest, and thus, the basis of the claim was changed, and that the claim for change was related to the forgery of documents necessary for the registration of the instant case. On the other hand, the claim for change after the change was related to whether the deceased registered the title trust of the instant real estate, and thus, it cannot use the existing litigation documents. Thus, the above application for change is inappropriate because it substantially
B. The modification of a claim can be made until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim merely differs in the method of resolution in the same living facts or the same economic interest disputes, and the modification of the ground of the claim does not change in the foundation of the claim. In addition, where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of the
(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu24622 delivered on January 12, 1990, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da32133 delivered on April 15, 1997, etc.). The record reveals the following.