beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case, since the defendant knew of the defect that the plaintiff intended to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") to a third party and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
2. If the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, in order to deny this by the plaintiff and to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer by claiming the invalidation of the grounds for registration, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for invalidation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.). As to the instant real estate, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, even against the Plaintiff, who is the former owner, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the above purchase price even though the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate at KRW 24 million to the Defendant, and issued all documents for ownership transfer registration, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the decision in lieu of conciliation was confirmed in the instant conciliation case that the Defendant paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.