손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and that part is revoked.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, inasmuch as the judgment of the court of first instance excludes the appellate part as follows, the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Parts in height:
A. On the 4th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 3rd day of the judgment and the 4th day of the 4th day of the 3th day and the 4th day of the 4th day of the action
B. On the 6th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first parallel is as follows.
4) The Defendant asserts to the effect that when the registration of preservation or transfer of ownership under the Real Estate Registration Act was made at the time of 192, the registration officer did not immediately notify the competent authority of the relevant purport, but did not enter the fact of owning the Plaintiff in the land register, and that there was no delivery of taxation data even though the tax data was sent to the head of a tax office, and that D, the seller, stated that there was no fact that he issued the certificate of approval of sale directly, the presumption of the completion of registration, and that the Plaintiff’s application for registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land was withdrawn each.
According to the registered rules and regulations, which were enforced at the time of the application for the registration of transfer of ownership of the land of this case, if the plaintiff's application for registration was withdrawn or rejected, the completion of the registration must not be recorded in the purchaser's written evidence (Evidence A No. 1) and there should be documents to indicate the fact that the plaintiff's application was dismissed on the application form and the other attached documents file. However, the defendant did not submit such documents.
The fact that the land register does not contain the fact of ownership of the plaintiff and that there is no taxation data sent, respectively, are supported by the fact that the defendant did not enter the ownership of the plaintiff's application in the register of the previous light rather than supporting the withdrawal.