[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1976민(3),331]
Validity of registration consistent with substantive rights relations
Even if there is a defect caused by a judgment that has already been invalidated against the deceased person during the process of passing the registration, the registration is considered to be a valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship of the right, so long as the ownership is to be transferred to the defendant corporation.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 4294Da7217 delivered on February 15, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7217Da1048 delivered on September 26, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 72Da1048 delivered on September 26, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 1023Da10233 delivered on September 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 203Da28 delivered on September 28, 196, and Article 186(16)28 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant School Foundation
Busan District Court (75 Gohap2145)
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
The defendant performed the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation No. 7699 of December 18, 1973 and delivered the above site to the plaintiff on April 10, 1953.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
In full view of the following facts: (a) the transfer registration of ownership was passed through the name of the defendant as stated in the purport of the claim; (b) the fact that the defendant corporation occupied and used part of the site of (title omitted) middle school that it manages the land in this case as part of the playground that it manages is without dispute between the parties; (c) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, and 3-3 through 6-6 without dispute between the parties; and (d) the result of the examination of documents by the court below, the land in this case was originally owned by the deceased on March 16, 1950, and the deceased on December 31, 1965, the non-party 2, his wife, and the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, who were his wife, jointly succeeded to the land in this case with the inheritance of Australia; and (d) the defendant corporation, the non-party 1, the deceased father of the plaintiff, was jointly succeeded to the land in this case on July 39, 197975.
However, although the defendant's transfer of ownership to this land was completed by a judgment that had already been obtained against the deceased, the above registration is asserted to be valid since it conforms to the substantive relationship of the above rights. Thus, there is no dispute over the establishment of the above 1,2,3, Eul No. 8,9, and Eul No. 5, which is presumed to have been established as a whole, due to the testimony of the non-party 5, and the above witness, non-party 6, and non-party 7, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments were examined in the testimony of the non-party 1,4, and the non-party 1,3,3,3, Eul No. 7, and Eul No. 8,4, which are the non-party 1, as the non-party 1,5, and the non-party 2, as the non-party 1,3,800, which are the non-party 1, the defendant 2, as the non-party 4, which were located in the above land (the non-party 1, the second-party 2).
Therefore, even if the transfer registration of the Defendant’s name on this land was found to have been completed by the judgment that was invalidated against the deceased person during the process of transferring the registration, so long as the ownership of this land is to be transferred to the Defendant corporation according to the course of recognition above, the above registration shall be considered to be a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship of the right.
Therefore, the above registration of transfer of ownership is null and void. The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above registration and delivery of the transferred land is without merit on the premise that the plaintiff's land is his co-owned property. Thus, the original judgment is unfair on the ground that it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above registration and delivery of the transferred land. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)