Plaintiff (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Lee Jae-gu, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Kim Min-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 17, 2009

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2006Kadan16313 Decided August 13, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on August 23, 1997 by the 32971, with respect to one-half shares of the 2,816 square meters of the religious site in the Gu-dong (number 1 omitted) Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal under Section 8 (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of

2. Amendment to paragraph (d) of Article 8.

(D) The facts that the Plaintiff had previously expressed the intent to donate the land of this case to the Defendant are as seen earlier, but the said intent is not expressed in writing (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13 of Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, and 13 of the above donation cannot be deemed as having been written in which the Plaintiff’s intent to donate the land of this case was stated, and it cannot be deemed as having been rescinded (Article 555 of the Civil Act). (Article 555 of the Civil Act). Since the Plaintiff rescinded the above donation against the Defendant by the delivery of the complaint of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name with respect to the land of this case cannot be deemed as having been registered in accordance with the substantive relations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Chang-sung (Presiding Judge) Contribution to the Immigration Act