[소유권이전등기][집15(1)민,245]
Examples of incomplete hearing which do not specify the object of the verification, etc.
Examples of incomplete hearing, which does not specify the object of the verification, etc.
Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Supreme Court Decision 66Na214 Delivered on October 14, 1966, Decision 66Na214 Decided October 14, 1966
We reverse the original judgment.
this case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.
As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that △△△△△△△△, the object of the claim for exchange, which is the object of the claim for exchange, was the object of exchange under the above exchange contract, and △△△△△△△△, the object of the claim for exchange, which is the object of the claim for exchange, was the object of exchange under subparagraph 1, because △△△△△△△, the object of the claim for exchange, which is the object of the claim for exchange, was not considered to fall under the object of exchange under subparagraph 1, which is the object of exchange (number 1-3 omitted), △△△△△, the object of exchange (number 1-3 omitted), △△△△△△, the object of which is the object of the claim for exchange, exchanged with one half of the forest land (number 2 omitted) in addition to △△△△△, the object of the claim for the transfer of ownership, which was claimed by the plaintiff in the first instance judgment.
However, according to the "Forest Trade Contract" No. 1, which the defendant recognized the authenticity of the contract, the court below held that "The plaintiff's right to cultivate forest land shall be sold and sold only to the plaintiff's land and the defendant's arable area at the bottom of the 5th regular 3th regular Do council (number 1 omitted), △△△△△, Si-Eup, △△△△, △△△, △△△, 1 omitted), and that "the plaintiff's right to cultivate forest land shall be waived from the conclusion of this contract." The plaintiff's principal claim for the transfer of ownership as "△△△△ (number 1-3 omitted)" is an object of "the 5th regular 3th regular △, △△ (number 1 omitted)" recorded in the above contract, and the above "the defendant's farming area of the defendant is an object of exchange," and therefore, the court below should have further confirmed whether the plaintiff's 3th half the plaintiff's right to cultivate forest land falls under the above "the plaintiff's farming area" and it should not be reversed.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong