beta
(영문) 대구고법 1980. 10. 30. 선고 80나724,725(병합) 제2민사부판결 : 상고

[소유권이전등기건물명도청구사건][고집1980민(2),414]

Main Issues

1. Examples which combine two cases after the status of the parties was changed;

2. The validity of registration where the ownership preservation of the company-owned building has been made in the name of its representative director;

Summary of Judgment

As the non-party company newly built and acquired the original building, it is the ownership of Non-party A, the representative director of the non-party company, filed a lawsuit claiming the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against "A" and the preservation registration completed in the front of "A" in subrogation of "A" on the basis of a favorable judgment in favor of "A" by a constructive confession of "A", barring special circumstances.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 67Da763 Decided June 4, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 431 Decided 431, Supreme Court Decision 16 ②B citizen 108, Decision of summary Article 186(129)284 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff and Defendant and Appellant

Plaintiff and Defendant 1

Defendant-Appellant, Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff and Defendant 2

The first instance

Busan District Court (79Gahap198, 79Gahap1436, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Text

(1) The original judgment shall be revoked in entirety.

(2) On November 25, 1978, the plaintiff and the defendant 2 performed the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to purchase and sale on January 30, 1978, which was received by the Busan District Court dong Office No. 112110 on the real estate stated in the attached list.

(3) The plaintiff and the defendant 2's claim for the real estate master plan are dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant 2.

Purport of claim

The plaintiff and the defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff only below) are the same as the judgment Nos. 2 and 4 of the Disposition, and the plaintiff and the defendant 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant under the below) are named as the defendant in the attached list.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and a declaration of provisional execution

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer is made under the name of the defendant as stated in the attached list is without dispute between the parties concerned and that the registration of ownership transfer is made under the name of the non-party 1's testimony (based on the sales contract and the records of the Busan District Court 79Gahap198; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (a sales contract for apartment and lot rent), Eul evidence No. 2 (a sales contract for apartment and lot rent) without dispute over the establishment, and Eul evidence No. 3 (a registration certificate for building lot) are different from the above non-party 1's testimony and the above non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 3's above real estate purchased the above real estate from the non-party 3's representative director in the name of the non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 1's above real estate acquired the above real estate from the non-party 1's original representative director, and it is against the non-party 2's claim.

Therefore, in this case where the above non-party 3 acquired the real estate in this case from the above non-party company, the registration of preservation of ownership and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which are based on the above recognition, shall be deemed invalid without any cause. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration in subrogation of the above non-party company is justified, and the defendant's claim for cancellation of the registration in subrogation of the above non-party company shall be dismissed because there is no reason.

Therefore, since the original judgment is recognized to be unfair on one side or another's conclusion, all of them are revoked, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines