2006 Ghana 99002 Cancellation of ownership transfer registration

Gap and 2

Section B.

October 0, 000

October 0, 000

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant of the Gu office's branch office will implement each procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 000 with respect to the land stated in the attached Table 1, the registration of ownership transfer completed under No. 000 with respect to the land stated in the attached Table 2, the registration of ownership transfer completed under No. 000 with respect to the land stated in the attached Table 2, and the registration of ownership transfer completed under No. 000 with respect to the

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1 through 5, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3, respectively, by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was originally owned by Byung, but each registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed as 000 registry office for the land listed in the separate sheet No. 000 for the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1. 000 for the receipt of 00 registry office for the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, No. 0000 for the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, No. 3, No. 4502, Jan. 1, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

B. A soldier died on or around 000. At that time, there were 000, Plaintiffs, 000, 000, 000, and 000, the Defendant’s brothers and sisters, in addition to the Defendant, the South-North.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment on this issue

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Defendant did not have donated the instant land from the Deceased, and all children including the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, after the Deceased’s death, jointly inherited each of their respective inheritance shares.

(2) Nevertheless, the Defendant’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant under the Act on Special Measures for Future Development is null and void.

B. Determination

(1) Registration completed under the Act on Special Measures shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Unless it is proven that a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that a registration for transfer or preservation is not legally registered due to other reasons, the presumption power of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures shall not be broken. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation which does not fit to the truth as to the substantial contents of the reason for change of rights. Thus, even if a purchaser in a letter of guarantee or confirmation prepares and implements a guarantee certificate that guarantees the alteration of rights claimed by a guarantor, etc. without the buyer's knowledge of the alteration of rights after the date of death of the seller, or without the guarantor's knowledge of the alteration of rights, it shall not be deemed that the legitimate presumption power of registration has been broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu63054, Nov. 13, 190; 2005Da327579, Feb. 27, 2007). 207

(2) In full view of the statements in No. 1-1-1-18 of No. 1 and No. 18, witness 000, witness 000, witness 000, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to this case’s testimony, the defendant’s sibling, 000,000, as the defendant’s sibling, donated the land of this case to the defendant before his birth, and thus the defendant does not claim their rights against the defendant. It was several times to the effect that 000, which was a farmland member of this case’s land of this case, would cause concern for the defendant’s land of this case from his birth, and on this basis, the fact that the statement in No. 8-9-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of this case’s land of this case was prepared as necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership under the special measures for the defendant’s name, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6-1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9-1, 2, 10-4, 7, 7, and 9-1, 10-7, 7, 9-9, and some testimony of witness 00,000, which seem to conform to the above facts of the plaintiffs' assertion, have been reversed of the legal presumption of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertions on the premise that the legal presumption of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the land in this case is reversed are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges 1000