[부동산명의갱신][집12(2)민,127]
Cases where there is an error of misunderstanding the interest of confirmation in the action for confirmation.
A. The status of the specific purchaser can not be changed as long as the administrative disposition of selling the property devolving upon the specific person is taken, so the status of the specific purchaser cannot be changed. Therefore, the name of the specific purchaser cannot be changed in the name of another specific person.
B. Where an action is brought to verify the existence of a contract of sale and purchase, it should be viewed to the effect that the contract has verified that the present obligation exists.
Maternity Crime
Songok et al. and one other
Busan District Court Decision 63Na493 delivered on March 4, 1964
The part rejecting the plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
The original judgment shall be reversed, and a reasonable judgment shall be brought again.
The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is examined.
In order for a purchaser of the property devolving upon the State to become a purchaser of the property devolving upon the State, the purchaser shall be a person without any grounds for disqualification for the purchaser as provided in each subparagraph of Article 9 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and the purchase of the property devolving upon the State as provided in Articles 10 through 12 of the same Act shall not be a case of double purchase of the property devolving upon the State. Thus, as long as the administrative disposition was taken to examine the eligibility of the specific purchaser in accordance with the procedure provided in the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and to sell the property devolving upon the specific person, the status of the specific purchaser shall not be changed thereby. Therefore, it shall not be applied to the case where the status of the specific purchaser is succeeded by inheritance or other general succession, unless the status of the specific purchaser is succeeded by inheritance or other general succession, the above specific purchaser's name shall not be renewed in the name of another specific person. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for the renewal of the name of the purchaser of the sale contract
The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.
The lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only where there is a benefit to immediately verify the current legal relations. However, if the plaintiff files a lawsuit to verify the fact that the contract was concluded in the past, barring any special circumstance, it shall not be deemed to have changed to the purport that the present obligation exists due to the conclusion of the previous contract for sale and purchase, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the lawsuit for confirmation which belongs to the plaintiff's preliminary claim does not exist. In this case, the court below decided that the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation of the original claim does not constitute a claim for the protection of the rights of the plaintiff's previous claim for the sake that the plaintiff's claim was rejected for the purpose of confirming the establishment of the contract for sale and purchase of 14,000 won as of November 9, 1961 without the consent of the court below to the effect that the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the establishment of each contract for sale and purchase of 30,000 won constitutes an action for the protection of rights of the plaintiff's claim for the first time without the consent of the court below. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the first instance's claim is justified.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman