beta
(영문) 대법원 1970. 7. 21. 선고 70다1057 판결

[소유권이전등기말소][집18(2)민,162]

Main Issues

Even though the Minister of Justice has not followed the confirmation procedure, the interested party may file a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the right or the payment of the property subject to a summary petition procedure.

Summary of Judgment

Property subject to the decision of cancellation of the attribution of the Central Government Office by the summary petition procedure shall not cause a change in the actual legal relationship, even if the confirmation procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy was not followed.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 of the Act on the Confirmation of Decision on Cancellation of Reversion by Summary Appeal Procedure

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 4294 civilianSang1488 Delivered on April 4, 1962

Plaintiff-Appellant

Korea

Defendant-Appellee

Wartime:

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon High Court Decision 69Na1756 delivered on May 13, 1970

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer.

Even though the Minister of Justice did not take the procedure of confirmation as to the existence or absence of the right to the property, among the property devolving upon the State subject to a decision of cancellation of reversion due to the simplified litigation procedure, the interested parties may file a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence or payment of the right. The Constitutional Committee's decision on the 1954Hun-Ba1 is the decision of the 1954Hun-Ba1, and the Supreme Court shall also obtain a claim from the interested parties with the actual ownership in accordance with the decision of this decision (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Hun-Ba1488 delivered on April 4, 1962). According to the facts established by the court below, since the property devolving upon the State subject to a decision of cancellation of reversion due to the summary litigation procedure was registered in Japanese name as of August 9, 1945, the Nonparty was just and reasonable to obtain a registration of transfer of ownership due to July 10 of the same year, 1948, and the Nonparty did not receive a registration of ownership transfer from the same Nonparty 15.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)