[건물소유권이전등기말소등청구사건][고집1970민(2),236]
The filing of a lawsuit and the requirements of lawsuit by a person who has an interest in an illegal stable or a person who has an interest in an illegal stable under Article 22 (1) of the Illegal Stock Disposal Act
A person who has an interest in an illegal cattle shed under Article 22 (1) of the Illegal Livestock Materials Disposal Act shall be interpreted as including at least a third party who has acquired the property illegally reduced under the name of another person under Article 3 of the same Act. Therefore, this lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, who is the wife of the deceased non-party 1, the illegal cattle shed, shall not be dismissed.
Articles 22 and 3 of the Illegal Stock Disposal Act
Supreme Court Decision 69Da1746 delivered on December 9, 1969 (Kakadd. 976; Supreme Court Decision 17Nod. 162 Decided Dec. 9, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 23(2)31
Plaintiff
Korea
Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (69A30)
Supreme Court Decision 69Da1746 Decided December 9, 1969
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of litigation incurred before and after remand shall be borne by the plaintiff.
On December 31, 1962, the defendant performed the procedure of cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration under No. 2086 on the receipt of ownership transfer registration under No. 20086 on December 31, 1962 against 1, 1, 1,000 Masan Central District Court 3, 3, 4-1, 4-1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 104, 1,104, 1,000 1,000.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
A provisional execution may be effected only with respect to the lighting of the above building and the part of delivery of movable property.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
To seek a judgment, such as the purport of the claim.
According to Article 22 (1) of the Illegal Stock Handling Act with respect to the main defense of the defendant litigation performer, a person who has an interest in an illegal stock raiser or an illegal stock raiser, who is dealt with by this Act, shall not file a lawsuit concerning the disposition thereof.
However, a person who has an objection to the decision may file an objection with the Committee within five days from the date of receipt of the notice of decision, and according to Article 3 of the same Act, the property shall also be deemed as the property of the person who has an illegal reduction or exemption. In full view of the above two provisions, the person who has an interest in the illegal reduction or exemption under Article 22 (1) of the Illegal Reduction or Exemption Act shall be construed as including a third party who has acquired the property illegally reduced or exempted under the name of the third party.
Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff was punished by the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased on July 20, 1968) who was an illegal stable. On December 14, 1962, the Committee on the Illegal Livestock Wastewater Disposal established under the Illegal Livestock Wastewater Disposal Act recognizes this as the property of non-party 1's non-party 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-
However, the plaintiff asserts that this case's property was owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 company's own property at the time of marriage with the non-party 1, the non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, and the non-party 5's testimony at the time of remanding the plaintiff's new property, and there is no evidence to recognize that this case's property is the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's property under the non-party 6 company's former name (the non-party 4 company's former name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 company's new property under the non-party 6 company's former name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 4 company's new property under the non-party 9's former name of the non-party 1, the non-party 6 company's new property under the non-party 9's former name of the non-party 1, the non-party 6 company's new property evidence
Therefore, since the property of this case is limited to the acquisition of the property of the non-party 1 with the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a person interested in the non-party 1 who is the end of Article 22 (1) of the Illegal Stock Disposal Act. Therefore, as long as it is obvious that this property has been processed in accordance with the above law, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, which is interested in the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the non-indicted 1 of the above law, is not exempted from
[Attachment List omitted]
Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge)