beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case in this case is based on the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 6, 18.
B. Except for the following changes, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
Judgment
Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, not only the third party, but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. On the other hand, the registration of real estate is valid even if the current real right state is publicly announced without reflecting the process or appearance that led to such public announcement. Thus, it cannot be said that the title holder asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the act of registration in acquiring real estate from the former owner without the grounds for registration entered in the register, and that the presumption of the registration is not sufficient. Thus, in this case, the title holder should assert and prove that the transfer registration of ownership by the title holder goes against the intent of the former registered titleholder, and that the registration is null and void.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da65462 delivered on March 10, 2000. Regarding the forest of this case, the fact that the ownership transfer registration for the forest of this case was completed on September 3, 2003, which was based on the sale as of August 1, 2003, is as seen above. Thus, the plaintiff should prove that the ownership transfer registration for the forest of this case was completed on the ground of transfer, not on the sale, based on the transfer for security.
The Plaintiff’s repayment of the Plaintiff’s debt to Defendant C, the amount of the money that Defendant C paid to the Plaintiff, and the amount of the purchase price that the Defendant received from Thai-gun.