logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나25453
소유권이전등기말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s reasoning and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that D obtained a power of representation as to the sale of the instant real estate from the network E, and sold the instant real estate to the Defendants by forging the network E’s power of attorney, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that D sold the instant real estate by forging the network E’s power of attorney, solely based on the descriptions of Gap’s evidence Nos. 7 through 15, 21 through 31, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

From the end of April 2015, the network E requested brokerage to the nearby licensed real estate agents' offices. The network E had an intention to sell the instant real estate before being hospitalized in the hospital.

B. During the time of being hospitalized in the hospital, the deceased E asked D about whether to sell the instant real estate, and the network E seems to have already granted D the power to represent the instant real estate sales before several months have passed since the instant sales contract was concluded with D.

C. On October 24, 2014, the network E visited Samsung Seoul Hospital and issued a certificate of personal seal impression necessary for the instant real estate sales contract to D while releasing Samsung Seoul Hospital on October 24, 2014.

The signature of the power of attorney (No. 3) is different from the pen body of documents (No. 31) written by the deceased E, but as seen above, D appears to have already been granted the power of attorney to sell the real estate of this case from the deceased E before the power of attorney was drawn up.

arrow