[가옥명도등청구사건][고집상고민,72]
Whether the lessee's possession of the house is illegal if the ownership of the house is transferred to a third person after the house lease contract has been concluded.
Although a person who had leased and resided in a house was aware of or could have known that the ownership of the house was transferred to a third party from the former owner after the lease contract, unless he was aware of it due to negligence, the third party has completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name, the possession of the house shall not be deemed to be an illegal possession due to intention or negligence.
Articles 618 and 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Gwangju District Court (62Na320)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.
The judgment of the same purport as the disposition is sought.
The grounds of appeal on the instant case are as shown in the annexed appellate brief.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined. The fact that Non-party 1's testimony was adopted as one of comprehensive evidence in recognizing that the plaintiff is owned by the plaintiff is identical to the theory of lawsuit, but it is not unlawful even if the non-party 1's testimony was adopted as evidence, unless it is contrary to experience rules or logical rules, even if the non-party 1's testimony was adopted as evidence in relation to the litigation case in which the plaintiff is the plaintiff. Thus, even if the non-party 1's testimony was examined as evidence by comparison with Non-party 2's testimony of Non-party 1, it cannot be said that there is an error like the above.
The grounds of appeal are examined as follows. Since the court below's first instance witness's testimony and non-party 3 did not conflict with the establishment of the part of the first instance court's testimony and the non-party 1's testimony, the contents of the non-party 1's evidence No. 1's pleading were confirmed that the non-party 1 and the defendant should redeem 25,00 won and order the non-party 1's possession of the above house, so the defendant can be found to have transferred ownership to the plaintiff during continuing possession, and according to the purport of the party's pleading that the non-party 1 were residing in accordance with legitimate lease contract with the non-party 1, the court below's decision cannot be viewed as an unlawful infringement of the plaintiff's ownership in relation to the non-party 1's ownership, unless the plaintiff knew or knew that the ownership of the above house was transferred to the plaintiff after the lease contract was executed, and therefore, the court below's decision that the non-party 1's possession of the above house should not be justified by the plaintiff's intention or negligence.
Judges Kim Byung-hee (Presiding Justice)