beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나56599

소유권이전등기 등

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s spouse, who is the Plaintiff’s spouse, and is the Plaintiff’s death penalty.

B. Each land listed in the separate sheet is divided into E, E, 196 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land,” regardless of whether the land before and after the division, is the land before and after the division; when each land listed in the separate sheet is individually named, “the instant land” and “F” were owned according to the sequence above in the separate sheet; and the Defendant resided in the above land.

C. F’s defect in the sale of the instant land around 1994, and the Defendant had to purchase the said land to continue residing in the relevant house. Ultimately, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on November 1, 1995.

around that time, the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a document (Evidence A No. 4) stating the following without any title in blank:

On September 29, 1994, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 4 million and paid the remainder of KRW 8 million on November 25, 1994.

The site 196 square meters A was purchased and sold to 12 million won in total.

E The E's owner is A.C.

B (Signature)

E. Meanwhile, on March 3, 2015, F, the former owner of the instant land, died on March 3, 2015, and its heir is the spouse H, children I, C, D, J and deceasedO (Death on March 14, 2013) of the first instance co-defendants, M and their children.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (the defendant's defense that the above evidence No. 4 was forged, but according to the result of the written evidence and the result of the appraisal by appraiser G of the first instance trial, it is recognized that the pen is by the defendant and the stamp image is also based on the defendant's seal. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit), Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 2017Na5932 before consolidation, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 2, and 2017Na61256 before consolidation. 4,5.