beta
(영문) 대법원 1992. 9. 14. 선고 92다20064 판결

[토지소유권이전등기말소][공1992.11.1.(931),2882]

Main Issues

Whether the possession of the seller who has the duty of delivery by selling the real estate is the possession of the other owner.

Summary of Judgment

The possession of the seller who sells the real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it is changed to the possession of the owner, unless there are special circumstances.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 197 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Defendant-Appellee

Korea

Judgment of the lower court

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na248 delivered on April 17, 1992

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below's decision is justified in recognizing that the object of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant is not the second real estate in its decision but the third real estate in its decision, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the absence of special circumstances, the possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and takes the duty of delivery is changed into the possession of a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da523 delivered on July 30, 1968).

The court below found that the plaintiff sold the above 3 real estate to the defendant and transferred it to the transfer registration of ownership, and held that the plaintiff continued to possess the above 3 real estate with the intention of possession because it was known that the above 3 real estate was owned by others, is proper, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possession of the other real estate. The argument is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)

심급 사건
-춘천지방법원 1992.4.17.선고 92나248
참조조문