지분소유권이전등기 말소등기청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 14, 1970, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 5, 1957 with respect to 1/10 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through 3, and 8 through 12 as to 1/10 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 14 on September 14, 1970; ② for sale on March 14, 1955 with respect to 1/10 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 through 7 on July 14, 1970; ③ for sale on May 7, 1946 with respect to 1/8 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 13 and 1/8 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 15 or 24 on June 9, 1970.
(hereinafter “Shares in each of the instant real estate”). (b)
On June 18, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of title trust on June 17, 2009 with respect to each of the instant real estate shares to the Defendant.
(hereinafter “this case’s registration of transfer of ownership”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On June 2009, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, 12009, C, a representative of the Defendant, was the Plaintiff, stating that “the Defendant has long existed and worked for a long time, is the name of the clan B as a result of the land expropriation relationship.” At the Defendant’s meeting held around December 2008, the Plaintiff was required to transfer each real estate of this case to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was believed to have completed the registration of transfer of ownership in this case, and the Plaintiff was able to believe that the Plaintiff had the substance as a clan and did not act as the president, and that the Plaintiff was not obliged to prepare and deliver documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership in this case, if it was known that the Defendant’s meeting was not a legitimate meeting of the Defendant around December 2008.