[대지및건물소유권이전등기수속이행청구사건][고집1948민,6]
Public Trust in Registration
Since the public announcement of registration is merely a public announcement of the real right's substantive effect and there is no public notification of the registration, the part of the transaction recorded on the registry is not necessarily a evidence to recognize that the transaction has been made on the same date.
Article 177 of the former Civil Act
Plaintiff
Korea
This case's prosecution is dismissed.
Expenses incurred in instituting a public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff (appellant).
The representative of the plaintiff (appellant) shall revoke the part of the plaintiff's failure in the original judgment.
The defendant (the defendant) held that the court below's non-party 1 did not have the right to transfer ownership to the non-party 1 on May 31, 4278 for a short-term period of time on the real estate stated in the attached list to the non-party 1 of the court below.
The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials, and the defendant (the defendant) is seeking a judgment to the same effect as the decision.
The de facto statement by both parties shall be quoted by the person who is identical with that entered in the original judgment.
As evidence method, the plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and sought the examination of Non-party Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of the trial witness, and the defendant answer that only the public document portion among evidence Nos. 1 is recognized and contributed.
If the plaintiff alleged that the real estate was originally owned by the non-party 2 in accordance with the purport of the parties' pleadings, it can be recognized that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 2 in the short-term 4278 May 30, 4278. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the portion other than the public document portion (registration title) out of the evidence No. 4, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts of the contribution as the evidence No. 3, 4, and 5's testimony as to the non-party 3, 4, and 5's witness who correspond to the plaintiff 2 is not a party member, and there is no evidence to recognize the plaintiff 2's original ownership transfer registration of the real estate since the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 3 in the short-term 8,000. The non-party 2's original real estate acquired by the non-party 3 in the short-term 8,000,000.
Judges Go Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)