1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed.

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

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" with respect to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the Reasons for Appeal for Additional Decision: (a) the Defendant (Appointed) asserted that the deceased M purchased the instant land in KRW 4.20,000 from the deceased L, the owner of the instant land in around 1970; (b) the deceased L was still alive; (c) R was not in a situation of entering into a sales contract because it was not in Ulsan-do because it was relocated to land around 1966, and R was not delegated with the authority to dispose of the instant land by the deceased L, the owner of the instant land.

② Since there was a building on the instant land, and the network L has resided in the instant building, it is false to purchase only the instant real estate from the network L to the network.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case must be cancelled due to the invalidity of the cause.

Judgment

① Determination as to the above assertion is based on Article 3562 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

(2) As for the registration completed by the Defendant (Appointed Party), the presumption of registration of initial ownership or registration of transfer shall not be broken unless it is proven that a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures was presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship according to lawful procedures, and that the certificate of registration of initial ownership or registration of transfer was false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due to other reasons. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant (Appointed Party) did not have the right to dispose of the assertion against the Defendant (Appointed Party). However, the Defendant (Appointed Party’s assertion was not accurately aware of the developments leading up to the instant purchase and sale due to the age at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract, but