소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, on June 2, 1989, concerning the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff, the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale on May 20, 1989 (hereinafter "registration of transfer of ownership of this case") can be acknowledged.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the transfer of ownership is completed without the Plaintiff’s consent by forging documents necessary for the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership, such as the certificate of seal imprint, etc.
B. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, the grounds for invalidation should be asserted in the dispute.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27273 Decided September 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 92Da46059 Decided May 11, 1993, etc.). In addition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case by forging documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.