beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The underlying facts and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as follows: (a) the “F” of the second half of the judgment of the first instance as “M”; and (b) the “Sale on March 8, 196,” of the same eight parallels, as “Sale on March 6, 196,” and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to whether the Plaintiff’s clan can be seen as the previous owner of the instant real estate is as follows. The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) except the use of “L” of the third 18 L of the judgment of the first instance as “N”, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance; and (b)
B. Whether the presumption of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant can be seen as broken out or not, i.e., whether the person who completed the registration pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership of Ownership is aware of the fact that the cause of acquisition recorded in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the fact, if that person asserts that he/she acquired another cause of acquisition, the presumption of registration completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership of Ownership cannot be deemed as broken out solely on the above grounds. However, if it has been proven to the extent that it is true about the fact that the cause of acquisition newly asserted by other data, the presumption of registration should be deemed as broken out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29835, Feb. 23, 2006). The degree of presumption of the falsity of the letter of guarantee, etc. does not require the judge's conviction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24900, Sept. 26, 1997).
The defendant asserts that he purchased the ownership transfer registration of this case from J around December 1970.
The defendant's assertion on the above acquisition of rights.