beta
(영문) 대법원 1990. 1. 12. 선고 88다카24622 판결

[소유권이전등기말소][공1990.3.1(867),451]

Main Issues

A. Where a decision of permission for an appeal is rendered with respect to an application for permission for an appeal that did not submit a written reason for appeal (negative)

B. The binding force on the Re-appeal Court of Justice that rendered a judgment of remand

C. The case holding that an additional amendment to the claim in the appellate trial is lawful

(d) The objective scope of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment on the claim for performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration.

E. Nature of possession of the reverted property

(f) As to the acquisition by prescription between January 1, 1965 and April 30, 197, in a case where a parcel of land, which is the property devolving upon ownership, has been purchased and occupied (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

A. The appeal based on permission shall meet the requirements for filing an application for final appeal within the period of final appeal and submitting a statement of reasons for final appeal within 14 days from the date of receipt of the records of trial. Even if there was a decision to permit final appeal with respect to an application for final appeal for which the requirements are not satisfied, it is merely limited to the effect that the appeal is considered to have been filed on the day when the application was received by the original court, and it does not result in the cure of

B. The court of final appeal is bound by the legal judgment of the previous judgment of remanding, and thus cannot take any other opinion in the relevant case.

C. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on the ground that the land was distributed by the non-party company on the premise that it was owned by the non-party company, but at the appellate court, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case as the preliminary claim, and even if the new claim was changed as the claim for confirmation of ownership and the claim for cancellation of registration as the primary claim, which added the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of registration based on ownership, to the primary claim, the above main and conjunctive claim are different methods of resolution in disputes over the same economic interest, so it cannot be deemed that there is a change in the foundation of the claim, and since most of the previous litigation data can be used for the deliberation of the new claim, it cannot be said to significantly delay the litigation procedure, and if there is an additional change in the legitimate claim,

D. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations claimed as a subject matter of lawsuit, and the existence of legal relations, which are the premise of the judgment, does not affect the existence of such legal relations. Therefore, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the claim for performance of registration of ownership transfer does not affect the existence of the right of ownership of the subject matter of lawsuit, and does not affect the existence

E. Article 33 of the Military Administration Act, which provides for the duty to keep property devolving upon the State, is deemed to have been repealed by January 24, 1962 pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1 through 3 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Amendment of the Act (Act No. 659 of July 15, 1961), but in light of the provisions of Articles 2(1), 3, 4, 22, 25, and 34 of the Act, the possession of property devolving upon the State shall be deemed to constitute possession upon the nature of the title.

F. In a case where the land, which is the property devolving upon the State, has been purchased and occupied, it shall be deemed that the possession of the land was returned to the possession with the intention of self-ownership from January 1, 1965 under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State Property (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963), and Article 5 (2) of the former State Property Act (Act No. 2950 of December 31, 1976), which provides that the State property shall not be subject to the prescriptive acquisition, is applicable only after May 1, 197, and even if it is a State property before that date, it cannot be excluded from the subject of the prescriptive acquisition unless it is for the public use of the property for administrative purpose, so it shall not affect any effect of the prescriptive acquisition already completed before that date.

[Reference Provisions]

A. Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Articles 8 and 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 406(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 235, 377, and 385(d) of the Civil Act; Article 202(e) of the Civil Act; Article 245 of the Military Affairs Act; Article 33(f) of the Military Affairs Act; Articles 4 and 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disposal of Property Belonging to State (Law No. 1346, May 29, 1963); Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to State; Article 5 of the former State Property Act (Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976)

Reference Cases

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2029 delivered on February 24, 1988, 88Nu4249 delivered on August 23, 198. Supreme Court Decision 73Da702 delivered on October 23, 197, 87Da7225 delivered on October 7, 1987. Supreme Court Decision 72Da1430 delivered on October 10, 1972, 72Da746 delivered on May 27, 1975, 79Da1218 delivered on September 25, 197, 80Da164 delivered on April 24, 198, 86Da1979 delivered on June 16, 197, 197.

Plaintiff-Appellee

Hongk Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Plaintiff (Supplementary Intervenor), Appellee

Plaintiff (Supplementary Intervenor) and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Appointed Party)-Appellant

Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and 78 others

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant 3 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and 5 others

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1406 delivered on August 12, 198

Notes

The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd., interesting life insurance Co., Ltd., Defendant 3, Defendant 7, Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party) is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal by Defendant Dong Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant 9 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding this dismissed appeal shall be assessed against the said Defendants.

Due to this reason

1. As to the legality of appeal by Defendant Dongdong Life Insurance Co., Ltd.:

According to Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Articles 8(1) and (5), and 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, in filing an appeal based on permission, an applicant shall submit an application for permission of an appeal to the court of original judgment before the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive, and where the applicant fails to state the grounds for the application, the applicant shall submit a written reason for the application to the Supreme Court within 14 days after receipt of the records of trial to the Supreme Court. If the applicant fails to submit a written reason for the application within the above period, the Supreme Court shall dismiss the application by

Therefore, the final appeal based on permission shall meet the requirements for filing an application for final appeal within the period of final appeal and submitting a statement of reasons for final appeal within 14 days from the date of receipt of the records of trial. Even if there was a decision granting permission for final appeal with respect to an application for final appeal which does not meet such requirements, the effect of deeming the appeal to have been filed on the date when the application was received by the original court is considered to have been filed is nothing more than the effect of recovering

In this case, the defendant Dong Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. received notification of receipt of the records of trial from the party members on October 1, 1988, and submitted the written reason of application for the final appeal on October 18 of the last year, and it is evident that the written reason of application for the final appeal is not indicated in the written reason of application for the final appeal. Therefore, the above defendant's final appeal by the above defendant cannot be deemed lawful regardless of the party members' decision of permission for final appeal as of December 6, 198

2. Each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 and Defendant 7’s attorney on the misapprehension of the legal principles under Article 2, 33, and 103 of the Military Administration Act, and Article 7 of the Decree of the United States Armed Forces.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the land in the dispute of this case (other than the land in No. 8 and No. 9 of No. 2 list among the land in the 1, No. 2 list attached to the judgment of the court of original judgment) was originally owned by Mano-si, Japan (the land except for the land in No. 8 and No. 9 of this case was originally owned by the non-party No. 1). The non-party No. Yan Agriculture and Forestry Co., Ltd. (the co-defendant in the court of first instance, the trade name was changed to the Japanese Real Estate Construction Co., Ltd. after the judgment of the court of first instance; hereinafter referred to as the non-party Co., Ltd.) promised to purchase the land on Jan. 8, 1942 and made a provisional registration for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground that the plaintiff had the ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership rights after the sunset, and on December 111, 1962.

1. On September 30, 1943, the court below issued a favorable judgment to the non-party 1 who acquired the ownership by paying the price to the non-party 4 before August 9, 1945, or by paying all public charges for the above land after delivery of all necessary documents for the registration of transfer of ownership to the non-party 1. The court below held that the non-party 2 did not obtain the ownership transfer registration from the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 who acquired the ownership by full payment of the price to the non-party 4 before August 9, 1945. The judgment became final on January 25, 1963. The non-party company failed to obtain the ownership transfer registration from the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 company or the non-party 2 company's first procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration from the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 company's provisional registration or the non-party 3 company's first procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the non-party 3 company.

The above judgment of the court below is justifiable as it is based on the legal judgment of the party members for the reason of reversal, and the party members also cannot take any other opinion in the case in question as they are bound to the legal judgment of the previous judgment of remand (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2029, Feb. 24, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4249, Aug. 23, 1988). Thus, the judgment of remand is erroneous in the legal opinion of the court below as the reason of reversal, and the judgment of the court below is also erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, and it cannot be accepted as it is without merit.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 as to the misapprehension of legal principles under Articles 235, 385, and 377 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party)

According to the records, on December 13, 1978, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on the premise that the land in this case was owned by the non-party company as the cause of the claim that the land in this case was distributed in kind, which is its remaining property, from the non-party company, and lost the court of first instance. After the judgment of the court below, only based on a preparatory document dated November 22, 1983 and a written extension report dated December 17, 1983, the original claim was the preliminary claim, and the new claim was the preliminary claim, and the new claim was changed as the exercise of the claim for confirmation of ownership and the claim for the cancellation of the registration as the exercise of the claim for the removal of disturbance based on ownership, which added to the primary claim. The court below rejected the plaintiff's above alteration of claim on the ground that the court below was legitimate, and rejected the

In theory, the purport of the lawsuit is that the above measure of the court below is illegal because it violates Articles 235, 385, and 377 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The modification of a claim can be made until the time of the conclusion of arguments in the fact-finding court, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings. The modification of the purport of the claim, which is merely a different resolution method, in the same facts of living or disputes concerning the same economic interest, should not be considered to be the basis of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da702 delivered on October 23, 197; Supreme Court Decision 87Da225 delivered on July 7, 1987). In this case, even though the plaintiff made a change in the claim to add the main claim as seen above, the plaintiff has a different resolution method in the dispute concerning the same economic interest, and it cannot be deemed that there is a change in the basis of the claim. In addition, since most of the previous litigation data can be used to examine a new claim, it cannot be said that there is a significant delay in the proceedings. In addition, if there is a legitimate change in the appellate court's new claim, it is naturally the subject of a trial for the appellate court's additional appeal, and the court's decision is not justified.

4. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3, Defendant 9’s attorney, Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party) on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the promotion of res judicata effect and creditor subrogation lawsuit, etc.

(1) Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit, and does not affect the existence of legal relations, which are the premise of the judgment. Thus, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the claim for the performance of the procedure for the transfer registration of real estate ownership does not affect the existence of the right to claim the transfer registration, which was a subject matter of lawsuit, and does not affect the existence of ownership of the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of ownership of the subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of ownership of the subject matter of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 72Da1430 Decided October 10, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1218 Decided September 25, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 80Da164 Decided April 22, 198; Supreme Court Decision 86Da1958 Decided March 24, 1987).

Therefore, even though there was a final and conclusive judgment ordering the plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the non-party company with respect to the land in the dispute in this case, and there was a part rejecting the plaintiff's defense, such as the part stating that the land in this case was owned by the non-party company and the cause of the main claim in this case, the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment cannot affect the main claim in this case seeking the confirmation of ownership and the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, on the premise that the land in this case is owned by

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below.

The precedents pointed out by the theory are not appropriate in this case. Also, the conjunctive claim of this case conflicts with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered in Seoul High Court 71Na1597,1598. However, the judgment of the court below did not accept all the main claim of this case and accepted the conjunctive claim, and there is no reason to view it further.

(2) A lawsuit demanding confirmation of ownership concerning real estate or a lawsuit demanding cancellation of registration of ownership transfer may be instituted on the part of a legal legitimate owner, and it is not always possible to file a lawsuit with the Real Estate Registration Board for registration of ownership acquisition. In addition, a claim for cancellation of registration of the cause of invalidation, which was directly made with respect to the land of this case by exercising the right to claim removal of obstruction of ownership, which is the content of ownership, is not a claim for cancellation of registration of invalidity of cause, which is directly made with respect to the land of this case, by exercising the right to claim removal of obstruction of ownership, which is the content of ownership. Even if the Defendants received a registration of ownership transfer again from the non-party company that made the registration of ownership transfer by the final judgment, if the Plaintiff is not the non-party company, but the legitimate owner of the land of this case, the Plaintiff may seek

No theory can be employed because it is an assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, which led to the argument of objection or misunderstanding the purport of the judgment of the court below.

5. As to Defendant 9’s ground of appeal on the part of the principle of good faith

The plaintiff initially filed a claim on the premise that the land in this case was owned by the non-party company as the cause of the claim that was distributed in kind from the above company, and the appellate court changed the claim and added the main claim on the ground that the land in this case was owned by the non-party company rather than the non-party company's ownership. Unlike the previous assertion, the fact that the land in this case was not owned by the non-party company and added the main claim on the ground that it was owned by the plaintiff does not constitute litigation against the non-party company's principle. Further, since the shares of the non-party company belong to the plaintiff most of the shares of the non-party company, the plaintiff could suspend or dismiss the plaintiff's performance of duties as the de facto owner of the company's apparent representative, etc., and even if there was a situation where the plaintiff could proceed with dissolution and liquidation proceedings, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case cannot be concluded to violate the principle of trust and good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da43, Nov. 25, 1986).

In addition, Article 395 of the Commercial Act provides that a director, who is not the representative director of the company, conducts a transaction by using a name that may be recognized as having the power of representation of the company, and is responsible for the company's act of representing the company in appearance, the company shall be liable for the third party acting in good faith. Therefore, the plaintiff, who is not the non-party company, shall not be liable for the transactional act of the expressed representative director of the non-party company. Therefore, even though the plaintiff is liable for the land disposal act of the expressed representative director, such as the non-party company's non-party 2

6. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal regarding the right to perform the litigation

According to Articles 1 through 3, 13, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Litigation to Which the State is a Party, the State shall represent the State in so-called state litigation to which the State is a party or intervenor. The Minister of Justice shall designate an employee of the Ministry of Justice or an attorney-at-law or appoint an attorney-at-law as an attorney-at-law and have him/her conduct the state litigation. If deemed necessary in state litigation with respect to affairs under his/her jurisdiction or supervision, the Minister of Justice may hear the opinion of the head of the administrative agency concerned and then designate an employee of the administrative agency and let him/her conduct the litigation concerned. The

According to the records, the head of the prosecutor's office of each level who has been delegated with the authority to conduct state litigation by the Minister of Justice, the legal representative of the plaintiff, shall designate the prosecutor's office of each level and the staff of the Seoul regional prosecutor's office as the litigation performer, and appoint the lawyer as the litigation lawyer and have them jointly conduct the litigation of this case. Thus, even if the land of this case is a state forest managed by the Minister of the Korea Forest Service and does not belong to the management of the Minister of Finance and Economy or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, all the litigation acts conducted by the staff of the Seoul regional

7. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd., Korea Interest and Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Defendant 3, Defendant 7’s attorney, Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party) as to the prescriptive acquisition:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the above defendants purchased or acquired the above land from the above company on May 14, 1963, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the above defendants, and acquired each of them by prescription in accordance with Article 245 (2) of the Civil Code since 10 years have passed since each of the above defendants acquired or acquired the above land in good faith and without negligence after the above defendants acquired or acquired the ownership transfer registration from the above company's intent. However, even if the property devolving was acquired from the possessor and occupied the property with the intention of possession, the court below ordered the possessor of all of the property under Article 33 of the military law to occupy the country with the intention of possession. Thus, the court below rejected the reasoning that the possession cannot be regarded as possession independently in the nature of the title. Further, since the defendant Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and the defendant Education Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd. received the registration of ownership transfer by compulsory transfer order under Article 115 of the former Insurance Business Act.

According to Articles 2(1), 3, 4, 22, and 25 and 34 of the Act on Special Measures for the Settlement of Property Belonging to the State, promulgated from December 19, 1949, the possessor of property devolving upon the State is obligated to keep the State in custody pursuant to Article 33 of the Military Act, and Articles 2(1), 3, 4, 22, and 25 and 34 of the Act on Special Measures for the Settlement of Property Belonging to the State, the possessor of the property devolving upon the State and the United States government shall lease or manage all devolved property to the Government pursuant to Article 5 of the first Agreement on Establishment and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States, until it is designated as State-owned or public property, or sold to the State or corporation, and the lessee, manager, or purchaser of the property devolving upon the State shall preserve the property with the care of a good manager until the ownership of the property is transferred without the approval of the Government; therefore, it shall not be deemed that the above military law constitutes possession of property devolving upon the State-owned 164.6.

The Supreme Court Decision 69Da763 delivered on July 29, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 80Da3121 delivered on September 22, 1981 ruled that the party members pointed out that the theory of lawsuit had acquired the ownership of the farmland at the time of the original acquisition of the ownership of the farmland by completing the reimbursement after receiving a share of the farmland from the government, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent in this case, claiming that the land has been acquired by succession.

(2) However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the same Act provide that property devolving upon State property shall be State property free of charge. Thus, property devolving upon State property not sold by the same date shall become State property from January 1, 1965 (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da1809 delivered on January 27, 1970). In a case where one purchased and occupied the land devolving upon State property from January 1, 1965, which became State property, it shall be deemed that the possession of the land shall be reverted to State property from the time of possession to the time, so it is possible to proceed with the prescriptive acquisition. Since Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act, which provides that property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, was enacted by Act No. 2950 of December 31, 1976, it shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition until 15, 1975Da15.25.

Since there is no proof of the plaintiff as to the property that is officially offered for the administrative purpose of this case, the court below's rejection of the above defendants' claim for the ownership transfer registration on the ground that it does not examine the above point as to the above point, and on the ground that the possession of the property devolving upon the nature of its title constitutes the possession of another owner, which constitutes an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the conversion of the property devolving upon the pen and the prescriptive acquisition of State property, which constitutes an unlawful act which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it also shows that the court below's reasoning for pointing this out under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (No. 1 omitted), No. 189, No. 208, No. 620, Jun. 1, 207, No. 2017, No. 1797, May 30, 207; No. 1769, Jun. 16, 20197>

Therefore, since each appeal by Defendant Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd., interesting and life insurance Co., Ltd., Defendant 3, Defendant 7, Defendant 1 (Appointed Party) and Defendant 2 (Appointed Party) is with merit, the part concerning the above Defendants in the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. Defendant Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant 9’s appeal by Defendant Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant 9 are not legitimate appeal, and are all dismissed, without merit, and the costs of appeal

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)

따름판례

- 대법원 1990. 7. 10. 선고 89다7443 판결 [공1990.9.1.(879),1683]

- 대법원 1990. 8. 9. 자 89마525 결정 [공1990.11.1.(883),2089]

- 대법원 1990. 10. 12. 선고 90다카24359 판결 [공1990.12.1.(885),2269]

- 대법원 1991. 11. 26. 선고 91다24779 판결 [공1992.1.15.(912),289]

- 대법원 1991. 12. 13. 선고 91다8159 판결 [공1992.2.1.(913),501]

- 대법원 1992. 10. 23. 선고 92다29962 판결 [공1992.12.15.(934),3231]

- 대법원 1992. 12. 8. 선고 92다41955 판결 [공1993.2.1.(937),441]

- 대법원 1993. 11. 26. 선고 93다30013 판결 [공1994.1.15.(960),196]

- 대법원 1995. 3. 24. 선고 93다52488 판결 [공1995.5.1.(991),1712]

- 대법원 1996. 3. 12. 선고 95다40755 판결 [공1996.5.1.(9),1240]

- 대법원 1996. 11. 15. 선고 96다31406 판결 [공1997.1.1.(25),14]

- 대법원 1996. 11. 29. 선고 95다54204 판결 [공1997.1.15.(26),162]

- 대법원 1997. 4. 11. 선고 96다36227 판결 [공1997.5.15.(34),1421]

- 대법원 1997. 5. 16. 선고 96다43799 판결 [공1997.7.1.(37),1826]

- 대법원 1998. 4. 24. 선고 97다44416 판결 [공1998.6.1.(59),1450]

- 대법원 1999. 10. 12. 선고 98다32441 판결 [공1999.11.15.(94),2310]

- 대법원 2001. 3. 15. 선고 98두15597 전원합의체 판결 [집49(1)특,586;공2001.5.1.(129),890]

- 대법원 2010. 12. 23. 선고 2010다58889 판결 [공2011상,222]

- 대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2015다205086 판결 [공2018상,283]

관련문헌

- 서울고등법원 민사항소심 판결작성실무 서울고등법원 1996

- 안철상 행정소송에서의 소의 변경과 제소기간 행정소송 . [Ⅰ] 행정소송 / 한국사법행정학회 2008

- 진상범 공유재산의 시효취득에 시효기간 동안 계속 잡종재산일 것이 요구되는지 여부 및 그 증명책임의 소개 대법원판례해설 81호 / 법원도서관 2010

- 송덕수 자주점유 이화여대 법학논집 제2권 제1호 / 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 1997

- 지원림 등기부취득시효의 요건 판례월보 253호 / 판례월보사 1991

- 윤준 거부처분 취소판결에 대한 간접강제결정의 집행력배제를 구하는 소의 성격과 당사자의 확정 대법원판례해설 38호 (2002.06) / 법원도서관 2002

- 성언주 보전처분의 피보전권리와 본안소송의 소송물의 관계 재판과 판례 16집 / 대구판례연구회 2008

- 정상현 부동산 이중매매의 법률관계 판례연구 19집 (2005.09) / 서울지방변호사회 2005

- 송명호 기판력의 문제를 중심으로 한 진정명의회복을 위한 소유권이전등기청구에 관한 고찰 법조 52권 11호 (2003.11) / 법조협회 2003

- 문일봉 소의 변경에 관한 새로운 고찰 사법논집 27집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1996

- 이기용 취득시효에 있어서 점유의 의미 법학연구 9권 / 충북대학교 1998

- 윤진수 대법원의 파기환송판결이 재심대상이 되는지 여부 인권과 정의 226호 / 대한변호사협회 1995

- 안갑준 일반취득시효와 등기 사법연구자료 18집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1991

- 백영엽 귀속재산인 토지를 점유하여 오던중 당해토지가 귀속재산의 성격을 잃게 된 경우 그 이후 점유의 성질 대법원판례해설 18호 (93.06) / 법원도서관 1993

- 임치용 국유토지의 도시공원결정과 취득시효 대법원판례해설 31호 (99.05) / 법원도서관 1999

- 김형수 부동산등기제도의 문제와 개선방향에 관한 연구 : 특별법상 등기의무화제도와 관련하여 . 법과 정책 제5호 / 제주대학교 1999

- 이근부 소유권보존등기 법무사 419호 / 대한법무사협회 2002

- 김상수 파기판결의 구속력과 전원합의체 판례월보 369호 / 판례월보사 2001

- 한국. 대법원 법원행정처 예규·선례 통합집:. 부동산·기타등기:. 2016 법원행정처 2016

- 정재훈 점유자의 소유 의사의 추정과 번복 사법논집 29집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1998

- 강태원 송달 및 신의칙 고시연구 31권 1호 (2004.01) / 고시연구사 2004

- 이영풍 소송물과 소의 교환적 변경 : 사해행위취소소송을 중심으로 . 재판실무연구 2003 / 광주지방법원 2004

- 정상현 부동산의 이중매매계약에 관한 법리 소고 계약법의 과제와 전망 (2005.04) / 삼지원 2005

- 허상수 자주고유의 추정과 번복 : 대법원 판례를 중심으로 . 판례연구 3집 / 부산판례연구회 1993

- 배기열 환송판결의 법적 성질과 기속력 재판과판례 4집 / 대구판례연구회 1995

- 안갑준 일반취득시효와 등기 1 법무사 281호 / 대한법무사협회 1990

- 문일봉 취득시효완성을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기청구의 상대방 법조 48권 11호 (99.11) / 법조협회 1999

- 서울고등법원 재판실무개선위원회 (2017)민사항소심 판결작성실무 사법발전재단 2017

- 이기용 취득시효의 요소로서의 자주점유의 법리 비교사법 5권1호 (98.06) / 한국비교사법학회 1998

- 정갑주 1. 인접대지일부분의 점유와 취득시효, 2. 불하받은 귀속재산의 일부로 알고서 인접토지를 점유한 경우 자주점유의 개시시기 대법원판례해설 17호 (92.12) / 법원도서관 1992

- 제철웅 실체법상의 등기권리자 및 등기의무자와 소위 절차법상의 : 물권적 등기청구권을 중심으로 . 민사법학 18호 / 한국사법행정학회 2000

- 유남석 (파기·환송판결의 기속력) 환송판결의 기속력 제한(소멸)이론 : 우리나라와 일본의 학설ㆍ판례 판례실무연구 Ⅳ / 박영사 2000

- 석호철 취득시효와 기판력 재판과판례 6집 / 대구판례연구회 1997

- 김학동 부동산취득시효에 관한 판례분석 사법연구 3집 / 한학문화 1995

- 민중기 보전처분의 피보전권리와 본안소송의 소송물과의 관계 대법원판례해설 36호 (2001.12) / 법원도서관 2001

- 김대원 공물의 시효취득 재판실무연구 1996 / 광주지방법원 1997

- 안철상 행정소송에서의 소의 변경과 새로운 소의 제소기간 행정판례연구 11집 / 박영사 2006

- 송명호 기판력의 문제를 중심으로 한 진정명의회복을 위한 소유권이전등기청구에 관한 고찰 재판실무 3집 / 창원지방법원 2005

- 김영삼 92 행정법 주요판례 총정리 , 상 월간고시 20권 3호 (93.02) / 법지사 1993

참조판례

- 대법원 1981.2.24. 선고 80다2029 판결 (변경)

- 1988.8.23. 선고 88누4249 판결

- 대법원 1973.10.23. 선고 73다702 판결

- 1987.7.7 선고 87다카225 판결

- 대법원 1972.10.10 선고 72다1430 판결

- 1975.5.27 선고 72다746 판결

- 1979.9.25 선고 79다1218 판결

- 1980.4.22. 선고 80다164 판결

- 1987.3.24. 선고 86다카1958 판결

- 대법원 1964.6.16. 선고 63다1045 판결

- 1969.10.28. 선고 69다1723 판결

- 1970.9.29. 선고 70다카1686 판결

- 1978.4.11. 선고 77다1097 판결

- 대법원 1970.1.27. 선고 69다1809 판결

- 1981.9.22. 선고 80다3121 판결

- 1982.5.25. 선고 81다195 판결

참조조문

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법 제12조 (위헌조문)

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법시행규칙 제8조

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법시행규칙 제12조

- 민사소송법 제406조

- 민사소송법 제235조

- 민사소송법 제377조

- 민사소송법 제385조

- 민사소송법 제202조 (위헌조문)

- 민법 제245조 (위헌조문)

- 귀속재산처리법 제4조

- 귀속재산처리법 제22조

- 귀속재산처리에관한특별조치법 제2조 제1호

- 귀속재산처리에관한특별조치법 부칙 제5조

- 국유재산법(구) 제5조

- 민법 제245조 (위헌조문)

본문참조판례

당원 1981.2.24.선고 80다2029 판결 (변경)

1988.8.23.선고 88누4249 판결

당원 1973.10.23. 선고 73다702 판결

1987.7.7. 선고 87다카225 판결

1972.10.10. 선고 72다1430 판결

1975.5.27. 선고 72다746 판결

1979.9.25. 선고 79다1218 판결

1980.4.22. 선고 80다164 판결

1987.3.24. 선고 86다카1958 판결

서울고등법원 71나1597,1598

서울민사지방법원 67사43호

당원 1986.11.25. 선고 85다카2397 판결

당원 1964.6.16. 선고 63다1045 판결

1969.10.28. 선고 69다1723 판결

1970.9.29. 선고 70다1686 판결

1978.4.11. 선고 77다1097 판결

당원 1969.7.29. 선고 69다763 판결

1981.9.22. 선고 80다3121 판결

당원 1970.1.27. 선고 69다1809 판결

당원 1981.9.22. 선고 80다3121 판결

1982.5.25. 선고 81다195 판결

본문참조조문

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법 제12조

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법시행규칙 제8조 제1항

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법시행규칙 제8조 제5항

- 민사소송법 제235조

- 민사소송법 제385조

- 민사소송법 제377조

- 상법 제395조

- 국가를당사자로하는소송에관한법률 제1조

- 국가를당사자로하는소송에관한법률 제3조

- 국가를당사자로하는소송에관한법률 제13조

- 국가를당사자로하는소송에관한법률시행령 제2조

- 민법 제245조 제2항

- 보험업법 제115조

- 귀속재산처리법 제2조 제1항

- 귀속재산처리법 제3조

- 귀속재산처리법 제4조

- 귀속재산처리법 제22조

- 귀속재산처리법 제25조

- 귀속재산처리법 제34조

- 구법령정리에관한특별조치법 제1조

- 구법령정리에관한특별조치법 제3조

- 귀속재산처리에관한특별조치법 제2조 제1호

- 귀속재산처리에관한특별조치법 부칙 제5조

- 국유재산법 제5조 제2항

- 소송촉진등에관한특례법 제12조 제2항

원심판결

- 서울고등법원 1988.8.12. 선고 86나1406 판결