[손해배상(기)][미간행]
[1] In a case where the Korea Land and Housing Corporation received all documents necessary for applying for ownership transfer registration from a land seller Gap, and thus becomes aware of the duplicate registration prior to the application for registration, and thus failing to register the ownership transfer prior to the cancellation of double registration, the case affirming the judgment below holding that it is not a breach of duty
[2] Whether the appellate brief is treated as not having been filed, where the appellate brief did not state specific and detailed reasons for the violation of the law of the court below (affirmative)
[1] Articles 186, 390, and 568 of the Civil Act; Article 115 of the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Articles 423, 427, and 429 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 129 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
[2] Supreme Court Decision 200Da29356, 29363 decided Mar. 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 948) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da52287 decided Feb. 28, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 444)
Plaintiff
Korea Land and Housing Corporation and one other (Law Firm Effica, Attorneys Choi Jung-pon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na42696 Decided May 30, 2013
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the ground of appeal against the defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation
Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s failure to register the ownership transfer cannot be deemed as a violation of the above Defendant’s duty, even if Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation received all necessary documents from the Plaintiff, a seller, before filing an application for ownership transfer registration, and became aware of duplicate registration before the double registration is resolved.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the laws and regulations on judicial precedents and overlapping registration.
2. As to the appeal against Defendant Republic of Korea
The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes. If the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant does not state such specific and explicit reasons, it is inevitable to treat the grounds of final appeal as failing to submit the grounds of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da29356, 29363, Mar. 23, 2001). The grounds of final appeal submitted by the Plaintiff are not stated as the grounds of final appeal against the Defendant, and thus, the grounds of final appeal are not submitted. The grounds of final appeal are not stated as well.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)