beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① each entry in the evidence No. 12-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 12 in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added, and ② except for the addition of the judgment on the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff to this court, 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; thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. Since the Plaintiff’s act of donation of each of the instant real estate against Defendant B was conducted in the status of Defendant B’s office capacity, the registration of transfer of ownership on each of the instant real estate is null and void.
Ultimately, each of the instant real estate will be the heir’s inherited property. Since the Plaintiff is a co-owner of each of the instant real estate, it is seeking the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant B’s name and the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant NongHyup Co., Ltd. as a preservation act for
B. The judgment real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and is held liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidation on the part of the assertion that the registration was completed without any cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997; 2003Da40651, Sept. 29, 2005). Pursuant to each description of the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 10, 11 (including the provisional number) and the witness AP testimony of the instant real estate, it is not recognized that C had any inconvenience due to heavy weather, etc. at the time of donation, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is without merit without further review.
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.