beta
(영문) 대법원 2018.07.26 2017다289040

추심금

Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 1085 of the Civil Act provides, “Where an article or right which is the subject of testamentary gift is the subject of a third person’s right at the time of the death of the testator, the donee shall not demand that the third person extinguish his/her right against (1).”

It is confirmed that the donee is the principle to acquire the subject matter of testamentary gift in the condition as at the time of becoming effective, considering the fact that giving the subject matter of testamentary gift to the donee is the will of the testator unless the testator expresses another will.

Therefore, where the subject matter of a testamentary gift is the subject matter of a third party’s right at the time of the death of the testator, such third party’s right should be deemed to exist even after the testamentary gift is reverted to the donee,

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and recognized the fact that F established the defendant on October 16, 1971 and operated the defendant as president. The defendant completed the building owned by F on July 31, 1987 on the land of this case on which F owned the land and paid F a fee for the use of the land of this case, and F died on November 1, 1999 after bequeathed the land of this case to the Religious Council on June 13, 1994, and on April 11, 2001, the ownership transfer registration for the land of this case was completed on the land of this case on the land of this case on April 11, 200, and there is room to view that the defendant used the land of this case without compensation until the Religious Council acquired the ownership of the land of this case, but even if it is said that the defendant had a new right of free use against the owner.

참조조문