소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim in the trial are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the judgment on the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the selective addition of repayment in the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The addition;
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff received shares of C's 1/2 of the land before the division of this case, including the land of this case, and acquired ownership after completion of repayment on December 30, 1959. The registration of ownership transfer was completed only with respect to the land of this case divided by mistake, E, the part of the divided land of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 30, 1959 with respect to the land of this case divided by the plaintiff on December 30, 1959. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the land of this case on December 30, 1959.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, the plaintiff's transfer registration of ownership was completed on March 24, 1965 on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 30, 1959 with respect to 220 Y E E in e-si. The plaintiff's transfer registration was completed on March 24, 1965. However, the fact that the land before the division was divided into the land after December 30, 1959 and the land after December 30, 1960, which was written on the date of repayment in the register, can be recognized as being around December 30, 1959. However, the above fact that the land after the completion of repayment was written on the certificate of redemption was merely 220 e-si in e-si, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff completed the redemption of the land by the above E-si 20 e-si.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just.