beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.23 2015다3976

소유권이전등기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Recognizing the facts stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could file a claim against the Defendant for the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the termination of the trust regarding each of the instant commercial buildings by subrogation of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Defendant in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against B, and determined that the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant B, which was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the transfer registration of ownership on January 15, 2010 and December 3, 2009 by the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, for all or part of the above right to claim the transfer registration of ownership, was liable to implement the transfer registration procedure for each of the instant commercial buildings on condition of cancellation of the execution based on the above seizure and provisional seizure.

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted that not only the above attachment and provisional attachment order but also the above attachment and provisional attachment order, but also the debtor Eul and the defendant as the third debtor of the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court on July 29, 2008 that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request unless the attachment and provisional attachment order is conditioned by the cancellation of execution.

Therefore, the lower court did not render any judgment on the validity of the defense, even though it should have judged the validity of the aforementioned defense by examining whether the above claim for transfer registration of ownership against the Defendant was included in the above seizure of each claim. Therefore, the lower court erred by omitting the judgment and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.