The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and the conjunctive claim against the defendant C are all dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”). However, the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2999, which was received on April 23, 2018, completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”) due to the purchase and sale of the instant apartment on March 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

In the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, the transaction value of the sales contract of this case is KRW 900,000.

Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s children.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the main purport of the whole pleadings, the summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's main claim is that defendant C has custody of the plaintiff's identification card, a seal imprint, and a registration right of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff's letter of delegation is forged and the plaintiff's seal imprint was issued by unlawful use of the plaintiff's seal imprint.

Defendant C entered into the instant sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff without any authority by using the above registration certificate and the certificate of personal seal impression, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case on account of the instant sales contract to Defendant B.

Therefore, the transfer registration of ownership in this case is null and void, and Defendant B, the owner of the apartment in this case, is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in this case.

If the ownership transfer registration is made in accordance with the relevant legal principles, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, if the plaintiff denies it and claims the invalidation of the grounds for registration to seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for invalidation.

Supreme Court on March 13, 2014