beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 18, 191, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table (2). On May 10, 1991, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said real estate to the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant is the owner on the register as to the above real estate, after completing the registration of ownership transfer with No. 10464 on December 28, 1987, on the ground of inheritance by agreement and division as of June 13, 1985 with respect to the real estate listed in the annexed list (1).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4-3, purport of whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, with the Defendant, purchased all of the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List on February 11, 1991 and the real estate listed in the [Attachment 2] List in the [Attachment 58,00,000 won. The real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List is alleged to have been registered only on the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List for convenience because it is deemed that the land category is a road and it does not need to be registered. The Plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for
In the case of a sales contract No. 1, which was submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence for concluding a sales contract for real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 1, the Defendant asserted that he/she was not aware of the above sales contract, and thus, first of all,
In order to recognize the fact that the above sales contract was concluded as evidence, the authenticity of the sales contract should be recognized.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone signed the name of the Defendant.
It is insufficient to recognize that the stamp image affixed on the name of the defendant or on the name of the defendant is based on the Defendant’s seal, and it is also insufficient to recognize that the stamp image affixed on the name of the selling agent C is based on the C’s seal.
[Defendant recognized that the sale of real estate listed in the Schedule 2 of this case was delegated to Nonparty C, but this case’s attached Form 1.