[소유권이전등기말소][공1982.7.15.(684),561]
Whether there is negligence of a person who purchases and occupies real estate from a holder on the register;
A person who buys and occupies a title holder on the register as an owner shall be a possessor without any special reason, unless there is any special reason.
Article 245(2) of the Civil Act
Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Shin Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Jeonju District Court Decision 80Na28 delivered on October 16, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the land of this case was originally sold at 154 4 to 282, and that the plaintiff was owned by 242/2, and that the non-party 1 was owned by 40/282 prior to the division. However, the non-party 2, who was the plaintiff's fourth degree of disease, forged documents related to the registration under the plaintiff's name and sold it to the non-party 24, 1963 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the same person's name. Since the non-party 2, which was 154 to 282, the building of this case was owned by 154 to 26, the non-party 154-4 to 130 to 130 to 280 to 160 to 160 to 260 to 360 to 196 to 20 to 160 to 196 to 20 to 160 to 160 to 1 to 16.
Since the principle of free evaluation of evidence under the Civil Procedure Act is adopted in the judgment of the court of fact-finding, so long as it does not go against the rules of experience or logic, it is not necessary to explain specific reasons to reject the above fact-finding, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence by adopting only part of the same documentary evidence or testimony as evidence in the recognition of the fact-finding. The records show that Gap evidence and Gap evidence No. 17 are written in the same manner, but the court below's reasoning of the judgment that the above real estate was transferred from the plaintiff 12 without fault to the non-party 17, and that the above real estate was purchased from the non-party 17, and it is not obvious that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 12's owner without fault, and that there is no violation of the rules of evidence that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 4's owner without fault, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence No. 16.
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.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)