[소유권이전등기말소][집19(3)민,063]
A. Even if the State knows that ownership of private land belongs to the property devolving upon the State, there is no change in the real ownership rights of an individual, and such registration shall be null and void.
B. The consent of the other party to the appeal at the appellate court is unnecessary.
The consent of the other party to the appeal at the appellate court is unnecessary.
In a case that is not a necessary co-litigation, the effect of withdrawal of an appeal against a person who has filed a co-litigation cannot be contested by another defendant.
Articles 363, 239(3), 239(5), and 240(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 71Na151 decided July 21, 1971
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the Defendant Litigation Agent are as follows:
(1) If the defendant knew that the right of ownership of the plaintiff, who is the Republic of Korea of the land in this case, is the vested property and thereafter registered the transfer of ownership in the future, there is no change in the actual ownership of the plaintiff, but only the registration will be null and void. If the defendant accepted the registration of the transfer of ownership on November 9, 1960 to the non-party on August 21, 1963, the defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the prescription, and such assertion is not limited to the court below and it is not an ex officio investigation of the court, and thus, the first issue to criticize the original judgment cannot be adopted.
(2) The second issue points are the purport that the plaintiff withdraws an appeal against the non-party who was a joint defendant in this case at the appellate court without the consent of the plaintiff. However, the withdrawal of appeal does not require the consent of the other party. However, since this case is not a necessary co-litigation case, the defendant's country cannot dispute the validity of withdrawal of appeal against the non-party who was a joint defendant of the original court, and even after examining records, it cannot be found that there is any illegality in the trial process, so the court below cannot employ the above argument that renders the original judgment on the premise of the contrary.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Supreme Court Judge Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) and Kim Young-chul Ho-ho