전세권말소등기
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. D completed the registration of ownership preservation on August 9, 2016 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 22, 2016, based on sale and purchase on the same day.
B. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration for the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration for the establishment of chonsegwon”) on the instant real estate on August 17, 2016, based on the contract to establish chonsegwon as of August 17, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. 1) The registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in this case is obvious that the Defendant prepared and completed documents related to the establishment of chonsegwon in relation to the lending and borrowing of money with E, and thus, it is apparent that the cause is null and void. 2) The Defendant sought cancellation by exercising the claim for exclusion of interference with ownership. Since the Defendant did not occupy and use the real estate in this case and paid the money to the Plaintiff, it is clear that the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in this case is invalid, which does not fit the substantive legal relationship
B. Since the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff according to the expiration of the term of chonsegwon, which is the cause of the Defendant’s counterclaim, the Plaintiff is obliged to return the deposit to the Defendant.
3. Determination
A. Determination 1 as to a claim on a principal claim is presumed to have been completed lawfully in the cause and procedure unless there are special circumstances where a registration on a certain real estate has been completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da23524, Apr. 28, 1995; 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). The Plaintiff asserted that the registration on the creation of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was completed by false documents, but the Plaintiff asserted that the registration on the creation of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was completed by documents, but according to the overall purport of each of the entries and arguments, including the numbers, as well as the entire purport of each statement and pleading.