[부동산소유권이전등기][집11(1)민,143]
Time of transfer of ownership in the sale of a specified object under the former Civil Act
In the sale of a specified object under the former Civil Code, it shall be interpreted that the transfer of ownership takes effect at the same time as the sale of the specified object, unless there is any special agreement to transfer ownership in the future.
Article 176 of the former Civil Act
Maximum food
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 62Na205 delivered on November 16, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 62Na205 delivered on November 16, 196
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as shown in the statement of the grounds of appeal attached to the attached Form, and the answer by the defendant's attorney is subsequent to the answer.
First, we examine the ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 that points out the illegality of the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer of the real estate was recognized.
Unless there is any special agreement that the sale of a specific object in the enforcement of the former Civil Act will transfer its ownership in the future, it shall be interpreted that the ownership transfer takes effect at the same time with the establishment of the sale contract, and the original judgment recognized that the land subject to the sale is the object of new determined land after completing the urban planning construction work for the future, and that the plaintiff cannot use the land before the full payment of the price is made, and that the land in the sale of the land in the housing management zone is not delivered before the full payment of the price is made, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall own the ownership and transfer its ownership until the purchase price is paid in full, and the object and transfer of ownership shall be delivered at the time of the full payment of the price, and that the sale shall not be used before the full payment of the price shall be interpreted as including the purpose of withholding ownership at the same time until the full payment of the price is made. However, considering the above facts and the testimony that the sale contract shall be interpreted as including the purpose of withholding ownership, the original judgment only recognized that the sale contract was not in violation of the sale and purchase agreement for the sale and sale of the land.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the change in the real right by the sale and purchase contract of specific goods under the former Civil Act, which is the premise of the above recognition, although there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a special contract for the withholding of ownership under the contract for the sale and purchase of land, and therefore, it did not err by the court below, despite the fact that there was a special contract for the withholding of ownership.
Therefore, the appeal is justified and the answer related to this is without merit. Therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to make the original trial and decide on it.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) and the Mag-Mag-Mag-Man