1. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Daejeon District Court’s official housing district court.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the oral argument as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul's testimony, and fact-finding with respect to Eul's certified judicial scrivener D, the plaintiff's limited-liability member and Eul, a regular manager, may recognize the fact that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under Paragraph (1) of the disposition (hereinafter "the registration of ownership transfer of this case") by forging documents related to registration, such as a sales contract in the name of the plaintiff, power of attorney, etc., in the absence of legitimate power of representation.

According to the above facts, since the transfer registration of ownership in this case is null and void without legitimate grounds or procedures, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership in this case to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the trade of this case is valid in accordance with the legal principles of representative director or representation of expression.

On the other hand, Articles 268 and 278 of the Commercial Act provide that a limited partner of a limited partnership company shall not perform the affairs of the company or act as a representative of the limited partnership company, and they strictly distinguish the responsibilities and authority of the general partner and the limited partner. Article 395 of the Commercial Act does not apply to the limited partnership company. In addition, Article 281 of the Commercial Act provides that when a limited partner misleads another person as a general partner, he/she shall have the same responsibility as that of the limited partner in relation to the limited partnership company. In light of the above, in the case of a limited partnership company, the legal principles of expression representative director under Article 395 of the Commercial Act or acting representative under the Civil Act shall not be applied by analogy.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified on different premise.