Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of the original judgment.

The judgment that the litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution shall be sought, and the defendant's attorney shall, as a counterclaim, implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on July 11, 1969, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on July 11, 1969, which was the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon District Court Support No. 1337, Jul. 31, 1969.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all the plaintiff in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

On July 31, 1969, the Plaintiff implemented the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale on July 11, 1969, which was received as No. 1337 by Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon Branch of July 31, 1969.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Therefore, since this real estate is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, the defendant has a duty to order the plaintiff to clarify the possession portion, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

2. First, we examine the defendant's counterclaim claim.

The defendant did not sell the real estate to the plaintiff as it was originally owned by the defendant, and when the defendant was detained in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act on June 23, 1969 (the plaintiff released after the expiration of the period of six months of imprisonment on January 1, 1970). The plaintiff, around July 1969, ordered the defendant's wife Nonparty 1 to lend money of KRW 10 million to the defendant's wife Nonparty 1 to remedy the defendant, obtained documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership to the real estate, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff's name in the defendant's land. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff's name is the registration of the invalidation of the cause of the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff's real estate, and the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff lawfully acquired the ownership of the real estate to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's fact that the plaintiff passed the registration of the transfer of ownership to the real estate through the defendant's authority to dispose of the real estate.

Then, even if Nonparty 1 was not the defendant's agent, the non-party 1 had the right of representation as the defendant's wife, and at the time of the above sale, the non-party 1 had been detained, and the non-party 1 had been endeavoring to dispose of the defendant's obligation. Thus, the plaintiff's registration of the non-party 1 was legitimate because he had a legitimate reason to believe that the non-party 1 had the right of representation to dispose of the above real estate, and the non-party 2,3,6,13 and 14 had no dispute over the establishment, and the non-party 1 did not have the right of representation as to the non-party 6's claim and the non-party 6's claim for the above non-party 9's transfer of ownership as the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-6's non-party 9's claim.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the disposal of the real estate by the non-party 1's non-party 1's disposal of the real estate is a juristic act that has considerably lost the fairness that has been disposed of at a price lower than the market price due to scam, scam, or inless experience, and thus, it is difficult to recognize it with all evidence submitted by the defendant, but rather, according to the evidence No. 2 and No. 3, it can be recognized that the appraisal price at the auction procedure for the real estate in this case is only KRW 10,084,795, which is only KRW 10,08

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim based on the premise that the transfer registration of the plaintiff's name is null and void cannot be deemed groundless.

3. Next, as acknowledged above, the plaintiff is a legitimate owner of the real estate in this case. Thus, this case where the defendant did not prove that he had a legitimate right to oppose the plaintiff when he occupied the real estate in this case, and the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to clarify the part of the possession of the building in this case.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be justified, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the provisional execution order. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the same

Judges Go Youngk (Presiding Judge)