[토지소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1977민(2),150]
In cases where a purchaser of real estate occupies real estate upon delivery, and whether extinctive prescription of the right to request registration takes place.
If a purchaser of real estate takes profits from the use of the real estate in delivery of the object, the claim for registration of the real estate shall be interpreted as not being subject to extinctive prescription, unlike other claims.
Article 162 of the Civil Act
On November 6, 1976, 76Da148 decided Nov. 6, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 11364 decided Nov. 6, 197; Supreme Court Decision 243Du277 decided Dec. 277; Decision 162(12)265 of the Civil Act; Court Gazette 50No9492 decided Nov. 6,
Plaintiff
Defendant
Gangnam Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (75 Gohap80 decided)
1. Revocation of the original judgment;
2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on August 6, 1962 to the non-party 1 as to the 17 site 848-3 site Song-gun, Sejong-gun, Gangwon-do.
3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.
The plaintiff sought a judgment to the same effect as the disposition.
Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5 and 9 without dispute over the establishment, the defendant shall take over the original land No. 848-14 site No. 243 (hereinafter referred to as "the original land") which was owned by the non-party futures company, and complete the registration of ownership transfer under his own name on December 31, 1962. The defendant shall sell 226/243 of the original land to the non-party No. 2, and transfer of part of the original land No. 1964, March 19, 1964 to the non-party No. 2, and the defendant and the non-party No. 2 paid the remainder of the original land No. 1 to the defendant on the same date as the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 paid the purchase price to the non-party No. 970, May 30, 1974; the defendant shall not be held to the non-party No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 paid the remaining land No. 97.
In addition, in full view of the purport of part of the testimony of Nonparty 3, 4, and Nonparty 5 by the court below as to the testimony of Nonparty 1 as to the witness of the court below, the court below purchased 50 square meters of the specific land portion from the defendant and then used it by constructing and using the above building on the ground after being delivered it around that time, and selling the above building and its site to the plaintiff on January 13, 1968, and there is no other counter-proof evidence against the above recognition.
The plaintiff asserts that only the land that can be performed as of August 6, 1962 is sought by the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1 for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 on the ground of the above sale and purchase as of August 6, 1962. The defendant first claims that the non-party 1 did not pay the remaining amount until the due date for the payment stipulated in the above sale and purchase contract, and that the non-party 1 could not accept the plaintiff's claim due to the non-party 1's expression of intent to cancel the above sale and purchase contract and lawfully cancel the above sale and purchase contract without the due date for the non-party 1's failure to perform the above sale and purchase obligation against the defendant. Thus, the non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 1 did not perform the above sale and purchase obligation of the non-party 1 on the premise that the non-party 1 did not perform the above sale and purchase obligation of the non-party 1 on an equal basis and that the non-party 1's testimony cannot be acknowledged otherwise.
Second, the defendant asserted that the right to claim for registration held by the non-party 1 against the defendant was completed due to the non-party 1's failure to exercise his right for ten years from the time when the right can be exercised, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, in the case where the non-party 1 who purchased the land in question takes over it and takes profits from using it, the non-party 1's right to claim for registration is interpreted not to be subject to the extinctive prescription, unlike other claims, so the defendant's assertion that
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on August 6, 1962 to the non-party 1. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 for the performance of the above obligation by subrogation of the non-party 1 is just and acceptable. However, since the original judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claim on behalf of the non-party 1, the original judgment is accepted and the plaintiff's claim is revoked and the judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to bear the costs of lawsuit.
Judges Osungsung (Presiding Judge)