1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff who cited the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or partial dismissal as follows.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제5면 제11행과 제12행 사이에 다음과 같은 기재를 추가한다.

『가. 어느 부동산에 관하여 등기가 마쳐져 있는 경우 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 원인과 절차에 있어서 적법하게 마쳐진 것으로 추정되므로(대법원 2002. 2. 5. 선고 2001다72029 판결 등 참조), 그 등기가 원인무효임을 이유로 말소를 청구하는 자가 등기서류가 위조되는 등 등기절차가 적법하게 진행되지 아니한 것으로 의심할 만한 사정이 있다는 등의 무효사실에 대한 증명책임을 진다.』 ▣ 제1심 판결문 제5면 제12행 중 “가.”를 “나.”로 고치고, 제6면 제8행부터 제7면 제5행까지를 다음과 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

(c) however, above;

The facts of recognition and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that there are circumstances to suspect that the registration procedure of the instant claim transfer and takeover contract was not lawfully run due to the forgery by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, in full view of the respective statements Nos. 2, 3, and 9, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 2, 3, and 9, the J, the office chief of the O certified judicial scrivener office, directly contact with the Defendant with the network C, or the content of the instant claim transfer and takeover contract, etc., at around July 18, 2013, it is recognized only that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the above claim.

Therefore, this is applicable.