[소유권이전등기말소][집17(2)민,009]
At the time of the enforcement of the Gu Resident Act, the seller of the real estate shall request the cancellation of the registration of invalidity.
At the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Code, the seller of real estate who was the owner on the registry shall be entitled to request the buyer to cancel the registration in the name of a third party whose cause is invalid for the performance of the obligation to transfer ownership.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 64Da707 delivered on September 30, 1964
Park gar-ok
Defendant 1 and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 68Na801 delivered on November 21, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na801 delivered on November 21, 1968
We reverse the original judgment.
This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
The grounds of appeal are without merit, since the grounds of appeal are stated in the grounds of appeal or in the petition of appeal, and it is not possible to invoke any other written contents, and according to the contents of the grounds of appeal as to the transfer of salary by the agent, it is improper to invoke the grounds of appeal by another agent.
(2) We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s Lee Dong-dae and Yu-dae, Counsel for the appeal.
According to the records, the plaintiff argued as follows. In other words, the 1st half of the 7th half of the forest land in Yangju-gun, including the land in this case, died on January 6, 1929, which was originally registered in the name of the non-party 1. Thus, the non-party 2 succeeded to the inheritance of the non-party 3, and the non-party 3 died on December 26, 193. The 7th half of the above 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 894 1st 7th 7th 7th 894 21th 1939, the number and land category of the plaintiff whose title were changed to the ownership registration of the forest in the name of the owner at the time of the above 1939.125th 165th 25th 1st 7th 1962.
The lower court determined as follows with respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion.
In other words, at the time of December 27, 1939, the Plaintiff purchased and owned the remainder of 6 information except (title omitted) 7-5-1 son of the 7-7-1 son of the 1939-1 son of the 7-5-1 son of the 1939-1 son of the 5-1 son of the 195-1 son of the 195-1 son of the 197-1 son of the 1939-1 son of the son’s Land. The Plaintiff sold it to Nonparty 4 in 1946 at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Resident Act, and the Plaintiff already lost the ownership of the land,
However, the purport of the judgment of the court below is that since the plaintiff sold the real estate in this case purchased by the plaintiff to the non-party 4 at the time of 1946, the plaintiff lost ownership, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit based on the premise of ownership was groundless, and no judgment was made as to whether the plaintiff sold the real estate to the non-party 4 and registered the transfer of ownership was made. As acknowledged by the court below, even if the plaintiff lost ownership pursuant to the Gu Resident Act in 1946, if the registration was lost due to the plaintiff's own name as alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant 1 lost ownership without any title, the registration was lost at the time of the registration was made, and if the registration was made without any title, the registration was made at the time of the loss of ownership, the plaintiff did not have any interest to request the non-party 4 to cancel the registration of ownership in this case's name as alleged by the court below for the reason that the registration was null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da707, Sep. 30, 1964).
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)