소유권말소등기
The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
The plaintiff and the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") are married couple.
(2) The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants on each of the instant land as indicated below.
No. 1 of the date of registration as the title holder of the second transfer registration for the first owner of land C 196-03-07 Defendant B 1996-12-272 on the date of registration as the title holder of the second transfer registration for the second owner of land A, the deceased C 1996-03-07 Defendant B B 1996-12-27 and 3 of the deceased B 1996-12-27-27 of the land deceased B B 1996-12-27-4 of the deceased and No. 4, the deceased C 1996-03-07 Defendant B 1996-12-27 of the title owner of the second transfer registration for the second owner of the land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff refused to pay the agricultural collateral collateral obligation to the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff.”
Nevertheless, Defendant C unilaterally completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants by cutting away the seals of the Plaintiff couple.
Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants was null and void or completed for the purpose of sale security, and did not go through the liquidation procedure. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation registration in the name of the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
Judgment
However, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, including all the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, including evidence No. 8-1 to No. 5, Defendant C unilaterally completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants by unilaterally subtracting the Plaintiff’s husband’s seal.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants has been completed for the purpose of sale security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is no longer examined and rejected.
In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.