Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In other words, the non-party 1 housing association purchased 570 square meters from the defendant on July 16, 1958 at 372 Sungdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul and constructed a house by establishing double 483 square meters as a housing site. The remaining 87 square meters were divided into 372-115 square meters and 20 square meters as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter "the site in this case"). The defendant did not implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the above 87 square meters and embezzled the proceeds of 372-115 square meters to the non-party 2 on May 20, 1965 and embezzled the proceeds of 200,000 won. Accordingly, the plaintiff is the representative of the association, who is the purchaser of the land in this case, as the plaintiff's representative, and in accordance with the resolution of the general meeting of the association members that decided to register the ownership transfer under the plaintiff's name, the plaintiff directly sought the ownership transfer registration procedure for the plaintiff's land in this case.

2. According to the plaintiff's assertion as the main defense of safety, the defendant's claim for the transfer registration of ownership on the site of this case is asserted as the right belonging to the partnership's co-ownership, and thus, it is necessary to jointly file a lawsuit by all union members, and it is not possible to file a transfer registration in the plaintiff's personal name. Thus, this lawsuit is unlawful.

I think, according to the plaintiff's assertion, although the non-party 1's association is an association (a partnership under the Civil Act) and the plaintiff is a union member, the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the land purchased by the association belongs to partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's partnership's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the land in this case's case's case's own right to represent the association's association. (However, the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership can not be a separate issue if the plaintiff's own right to claim the transfer registration is limited to one's own share, but it is obvious that the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the land in this case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's as a representative cannot be deemed unlawful as the plaintiff's own right to claim the transfer registration of ownership is not a party's own right to claim the transfer registration of ownership under the plaintiff's name.

3. Therefore, we judge the merits.

(1) First of all, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the grounds for the Plaintiff’s direct claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant who is the seller, the Plaintiff is due to the fact that the general meeting of Nonparty 1’s housing association members, as the purchaser, was a resolution to register the ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff.

However, as seen above, a cooperative that purchased real estate did not register the ownership in the name of a cooperative member, and trust the name of a cooperative member, one of the cooperative members, or a third party, and intends to directly register the ownership in the future, the consent of the seller, who is responsible for registration. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff obtained the consent of the seller about the registration of ownership transfer of the land in the name of the plaintiff, as alleged in the above, so there is no right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case against the plaintiff (if the plaintiff is a cooperative member, there is room to recognize the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of only his own share, but it is evident that the plaintiff did not have the purport to claim the registration of ownership transfer of his own share in this lawsuit, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a cooperative member of the non-party 1). The part claiming the registration of ownership transfer of the plaintiff

(2) Next, the plaintiff embezzled the proceeds that the defendant sold to the non-party 1's association once again and received from the non-party 1's third party. Thus, this is interpreted as a claim for compensation for damages suffered by the non-party 1's association, the buyer due to the defendant's illegal act. Thus, if the plaintiff is a member of the non-party 1's association, the plaintiff can only exercise his/her right to preserve the association's rights as alleged, it will be examined whether the plaintiff can be viewed as a member of the association as above.

The plaintiff, without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 12-2, and 12-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and witness testimony of the non-party 3, the non-party 3 and the non-party 9 shall organize the non-party 1's association around August 1959, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 5 shall invest the land price from the defendant to purchase 372-15 and 507 shares, and it shall be acknowledged that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 agreed to purchase 10 housing units with the industrial bank as collateral, and it shall be a kind of association under the Civil Act, since the plaintiff could not be admitted that the non-party 5 and the non-party 5 were transferred to the plaintiff without any other evidence that the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 were transferred to the non-party 1's association's original status as the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 were transferred to the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is clear that the part of the claim for damages under the premise that the plaintiff is a member should be judged as well without any reason.

4. Ultimately, since the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, it is inevitable to dismiss it. As such, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon