beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.07.04 2016가단19852

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 5, 1994 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), for sale as of September 17, 1994. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate as of November 5, 1994. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of July 10, 2005 as of the Seoul Northern District Court's Seoul Northern District Court's receipt No. 70274 on August 4, 2005 (hereinafter "the registration of ownership transfer of this case").

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was directed to the name of the sick who could not know the cause of the Plaintiff, and the instant real estate was leased to the Defendant around 2001, and appropriated it as the deposit for lease, and the Plaintiff’s horse, from January 2004, resulted in the occurrence of an unknown circulation of the cause, and the disbursement of hospital expenses continued.

In order to receive consultation about the procedure or expenses to sell the instant real estate to the Defendant, around June 2005, the Plaintiff sought D, a chief secretary of the office of a certified judicial scrivener C around June 2005. At D’s request, the Plaintiff kept the documents related to the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to D.

D, however, without any delegation from the Plaintiff, completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate in collusion with the Defendant.

Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration of this case is invalid by the unauthorized representation, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The land registration is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or appearance that led to such public announcement, and the registration titleholder lawfully acquired land for another reason without following the grounds for registration stated in the registry when acquiring the land from the former owner, and asserts that the form or process of the act for registration is somewhat different.