Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan710 ( October 17, 2008)

Examination Transfer 2008-0011 (Law No. 21, 2008)

It shall be returned to the ownership upon the judgment of invalidity of the cause, and even if the registration has been cancelled;

Although the donor asserts that the transfer of real estate acquired without authority is null and void by transferring it without authority, considering that the Plaintiff directly delivered a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale to the donor, the transfer constitutes a transfer even if the registration was cancelled upon the judgment null and void of the cause.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on November 16, 2007 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the decision of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the following determination as to the plaintiff's argument.

[Supplementary Judgment]

A. According to the plaintiff's personal information, the plaintiff himself/herself submitted his/her personal information, and it is true that the plaintiff applied for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale, and that he/she did not transfer his/her father's personal information for real estate sale, but he/she did not ask his/her father's personal seal certificate for the use of his/her personal seal certificate, and he/she did not ask his/her public official in charge of this case to issue his/her personal seal certificate (general use) to his/her office at the time of his/her work without asking the public official in charge of this case. This ○○ issued a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale without permission, and it is hard to find that the plaintiff's personal information was within the jurisdiction of the Dong office for a long time, and in particular, since this ○○ had worked as a public official in charge of this department, it is difficult to comprehensively recognize that the plaintiff's personal seal certificate was issued for the purpose of this case's real estate sale without his/her personal seal certificate being issued to this ○○.

B. On or before December 18, 2006, the date on which the Plaintiff, and Lee Jon entered into a sales contract with Do Governor on or before December 13, 2006, which was the date on which the certificate of personal seal impression was issued for the sale of the above real estate, the above sales contract was asserted as an act of unauthorized Authority, but even if the certificate was not granted at the time of entering into a sales contract, the above sales contract was ratified as an act of unauthorized Authority by issuing a certificate of personal seal impression for the sale of real estate after obtaining the certificate of personal seal impression for the sale of real estate. Thus, the above sales contract is valid for the Plaintiff itself,

C. It is insufficient to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the following grounds: (a) the testimony that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Do governor cannot be deemed invalid on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Do governor was made; and (b) the testimony that the Plaintiff did not confirm the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, at the time of concluding the contract with the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kadan31468, and that the Plaintiff did not dispute with the Plaintiff at the time of filing a lawsuit to cancel the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate in this case, and that the Defendant promised to give compensation for all damages to Do governor; and (c) the price of the real estate in this case was not erroneous and that there was no need to continue to own the real estate; and (d) the above lawsuit became final and conclusive.

2. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim in this case must be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.