[소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1969민(1),59]
When the extinctive prescription of a claim for registration based on a sales contract prior to enforcement of the new Civil Act
According to the provisions of Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Act, the acquisition of real right to real estate due to a juristic act at the time of the enforcement of the Civil Act shall be lost due to the lapse of the prescribed period due to the enforcement of the current Civil Act, and thereafter, even if only the obligatory claim is held, the period of extinctive prescription of the obligatory claim shall begin to run from the time when the ownership of the claim is lost.
Article 10 of Addenda to the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 69Da2069 delivered on February 24, 1970 (Dakh 4418 delivered on January 21, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1754 delivered on January 20, 196 (Dakh 20, Supreme Court Decision 17Da181 delivered on July 17, 199, Supreme Court Decision 25(16)631 delivered on February 24, 1970
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul Central District Court (66A9977) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 66Da977)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale at the 10 February 10, 1952 with respect to the 695 large 106 large 106 large Ga, Mapo-dong, Seoul.
The court costs are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts that real estate stated in the purport of the claim is currently registered in the name of the defendant.
In light of the above real estate and the above real estate were constructed on 1952.2.10 by the defendant's mother on the above real estate and the above real estate was constructed on the 6th anniversary of the above real estate (not now removed), the plaintiff was obligated to purchase the above real estate with 900,000 won (at the time of 00,000 won). The defendant's assertion that the above real estate had reached the main office for the sale and purchase of the above real estate was denied, and the defendant's assertion that the above real estate was destroyed on the 6th anniversary of the above real estate and the above real estate was destroyed on the 90th anniversary of the above real estate (the above 4th anniversary of the above real estate's establishment), and the defendant's assertion that the above real estate was destroyed on the 10th anniversary of the above real estate and the above 10th of the above 10th of the above 6th of the above 19th of the above 19th of the above 2nd of the above 19th of the judgment.
In addition, even if the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the defendant, the defendant's legal representative asserts that the right to claim for registration is not a real right claim after the enforcement of the new Civil Code, but a simple claim after the enforcement of the new Civil Code, so on February 10, 1962, the right to claim for registration of this case, which is only a simple claim, was extinguished due to the completion of prescription. Therefore, according to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, the acquisition of the real right to the real estate due to the legal act at the time of enforcement of the Gu residents' law, shall be lost due to the expiration of the prescribed period due to the enforcement of the current Civil Code, and even if the plaintiff has only the obligatory claim, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim shall begin to run from the time when the ownership is lost, so the defendant's defense in this regard has already been rejected.
If so, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the site of this case on February 10, 1952. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit is justified, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judge Sick-man (Presiding Judge)