소유권이전등기말소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of appeal and the claims in this court.
1. The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "Nos. 5 and 6" of No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "No. 5 and 7 of the court of first instance (the plaintiff alleged that No. 5 and 6 of the court of first instance were forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it; rather, according to the result of comparison of B's seal out of the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 7 of this court, it can be recognized that the plaintiff is a B's seal according to the result of comparison of B's seal out of the evidence No. 1 and No. 7 of this court's evidence No. 1 and No. 8-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 8; the plaintiff added "the additional determination" to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it
2. Additional determination
A. 1) As to the ground for revocation by mistake, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) The Plaintiff’s respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
A) Even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff renounced the right to a sales contract between the Defendant and B, or approved or ratified the sales contract between the Defendant and B, it is found that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that there was no inheritance right infringement on the real estate in this case, and made an expression of intention by mistake. Meanwhile, the issue of whether the Plaintiff was aware of the right to inheritance on the real estate in this case constitutes an important part of a single legal act that renounces the specific right, such as the right to claim for recovery of inheritance, and thus, can be seen by adding to the whole purport of the pleading in accordance with Article 109 of the Civil Act. < Amended by Act No. 1097, Jan. 1, 2004>