beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Defendant B.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: Defendant B’s argument emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The registration of transfer of shares in the Plaintiff’s name, which was made in the instant real estate for Defendant B’s assertion, was made by forging various documents, such as the power of attorney, etc. in the name of the Deceased at least 13 days before Defendant B’s mother E’s death, and thus the cause invalidation is invalidated. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to any request without any authority for the instant
B. As long as a registration of ownership transfer has been made on the register of real estate held in the judgment, it shall be presumed that the procedure and cause is legitimate, and the party asserting the unfair cause is responsible for proving it, and if it is proven that there is any doubtful circumstance that the registration procedure has not been lawfully carried out, it shall be presumed that the presumption is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46256, Feb. 28, 2003). The evidence submitted by the Defendant B alone is insufficient to find that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was unlawful as otherwise alleged by the said Defendant in the procedure and cause. Rather, considering the overall purport of the argument in subparagraph 1, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff can only be recognized that the Plaintiff was made in accordance with the mediation protocol in the case of cancellation of the right to collateral security between the deceased and E, and therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant B is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by Defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.