[가등기말소등기회복][공1980.7.1.(635),12850]
Where he falls under a successor after the closing of argument.
A person who has completed a provisional registration of the real estate after the compromise has been completed from a person who bears a real right obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer by judicial compromise shall be a successor after the closing of argument under Article 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Da1842 delivered on May 13, 1976, 76Da2778 delivered on March 22, 1977
Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Defendant-Appellant No. 1
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na693 delivered on August 24, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff, etc.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As the defendant acquired so-called corporate bonds from the non-party, and completed provisional registration and principal registration for the purpose of preserving ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case as collateral, but the non-party asserted that the secured claim was extinguished because the non-party did not report bonds under an urgent order for economic stability and growth, and accordingly, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of each of the above registration against the non-party. The non-party (the non-party)'s obligation to seek cancellation of ownership transfer registration was revoked under the name of the non-party (the non-party)'s right to seek cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the non-party's real right's provisional registration under the name of the non-party (the non-party's right to claim cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the non-party's title) and the non-party's right to claim cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the non-party's real right to claim cancellation of this case's provisional registration under the name of the non-party (the non-party's right to claim cancellation's real right to claim cancellation of ownership registration).
In light of the records, the process of confirmation of facts by the court below is deemed legitimate and it cannot be deemed that the court below recognized facts without any evidence, or that the court below made an erroneous determination of the value of evidence against the rules of experience or the rules of evidence. In this case, even though the court below judged that the defendant's right to request cancellation registration against the non-party under paragraph (3) of the above reconciliation provision is a real right claim under the condition of non-performance of monetary payment obligation under paragraph (1) of the same Article (see Supreme Court Decisions 72Da1342, Jun. 8, 1976; 76Da2773, Mar. 22, 1977). The above protocol of settlement is Paragraph (4) of the above Article that the defendant's cancellation of provisional disposition on this real estate by June 10, 1976 does not affect the above judgment. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and contents of a real right claim and the reasoning of the protocol of compromise, or by finding the reasons for non-performance or non-performance, etc.
Therefore, the appeal from the standpoint of different views cannot be adopted. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)
The date of signature, because it is during the course of the Korean Supreme Court Judge Dara and the Korean Supreme Court Judge's overseas business trips
impossibility of being appointed
Supreme Court Judge;
Kim Ha-ju