beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is the owner of the land in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, G 104.1 square meter, and the owner of the adjoining land in 1972, and the C commercial building was newly constructed and two of the stores in 9,2-4 stories. Even if the victim was awarded the above land at auction, the ownership of the Defendant’s sectional ownership was not acquired. A sales contract concluded on February 24, 1976 between the victim and the victim on the sectional ownership of the Defendant was concluded on February 24, 1976 with the victim and concluded on February 24, 1976, which was invalid because it is not consistent with the actual situation and thus cannot be specified. Moreover, if the victim deducted the rent income between the victim and the victim as of May 29, 1982 from the deduction of the rent income between the victim and the victim as of May 29, 1982, the Defendant’s debt to the victim becomes null and void since the victim did not have any right to the sectional ownership.
Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.
1) The Defendant is the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jung-gu 104.1 square meter (hereinafter “instant land”).
A) A building C on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) was owned by the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land after obtaining a building permit jointly with the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land on December 1972.
(2) The building of this case was newly constructed, and as a part of it, divided ownership of the building of this case in proportion to its own site ownership, and even until now, the building of this case is unregistered. (2) The defendant is money from the victim since 1974.