[상속재산분할][집17(1)민,008]
A. There is no change in the basis of the claim even though the cause of the claim for performance of the procedure for claiming for transfer registration of ownership was alleged as a kind of donation.
B. Since the judgment authority of the family court is not exclusive jurisdiction, the judgment authority of the family court is not the complaint even after the change of the court of appeal exceeds the scope of the family trial case.
C. The judgment authority of the family court is not exclusive jurisdiction.
A. There is no change in the basis of the claim even though the cause of the claim for performance of the procedure for claiming the transfer of ownership was alleged as a kind of donation.
B. Since the judgment authority of the family court is not exclusive jurisdiction, the judgment authority of the family court is not a complaint beyond the scope of the factual judgment case due to the change of the appellate court.
Articles 235(1) and 28 of the Civil Procedure Act
A
B
Gwangju High Court Decision 67Reu24 delivered on November 5, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellee.
The defendant's agent's appeal is examined. However, according to the records, the original judgment, and the judgment of the first instance,
The claimant sought implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case by the family court of the first instance, which is the first instance court, but the cause of the claim is changed to the request for registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation at the appellate court, and there is no change in the foundation of the claim that seeks the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership as to the land of
As long as the case was brought before the appellate court due to an appeal against the family court's appellate trial, the appellate court's judgment authority is not exclusive jurisdiction, and the appellate court's judgment authority is just for the same purport. It is without merit. It is not reasonable for the appellate court to have determined to the effect that the appellate court's judgment is without merit.
The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.
However, in full view of the evidence listed in the original judgment compared with the records, it is not possible to recognize the original donation, and the arguments can not be adopted since they are merely a controversy over the legitimate cooking of evidence and fact-finding of the original judgment.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)