소유권이전등기
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.
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
However, some of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows, and the judgment of the plaintiff shall be added to the judgment of the court of first instance as to the new argument of the plaintiff at the trial.
[Revision] The part related to the "preliminary Claim" excluded from the subject of a trial at the trial at the court of first instance (the part related to "A. Preliminary Claim" at the bottom of the third part and the part related to "B. Preliminary Claim" at the end of the suspension of the third part) shall be deleted.
Part 2 of the decision of the first instance court (as stated in Section 2(a)(as stated in Section 2(a)), the following shall be added:
“The instant real estate was owned by E (the mother of the Defendant and C). E died on September 4, 2015, the Defendant and E’s heir, including C, made an agreement on the division of inherited property on February 25, 2016, and on March 10, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer of the Defendant’s sole title was completed due to the foregoing agreement on the division of inherited property.
[] The witness C’s testimony in Part 6 of the first instance court’s 4th judgment is added as evidence to the rejection of “part of witness D’s testimony.”
On the 6-9th of the judgment of the first instance court, the "no reason exists in light of this," shall be applied as follows.
In light of this, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was sufficiently aware of the fact that “C was unable to conclude the instant sales contract” (related to express representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act), and it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable ground to believe that the Plaintiff “C has the authority to conclude the instant sales contract beyond the authority to conclude the instant sales contract” (related to express representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.”
2. Added.