[소유권이전등기말소등][집14(2)민,196]
The case where it is difficult to believe that the registration is a registration which is void of a justifiable cause.
As to the defendant Gap in the second instance, the first instance court ordered the defendant Eul to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the defendant Eul, and it is necessary to examine and determine the relationship between Byung with the existence of substantial cause for the invalidation of the cause. In order to claim that the defendant Byung's registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the defendant Eul is null and void, it is not sufficient to be based on the above legislative confession, and it is necessary to examine and determine the existence of substantial cause for invalidation.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 65Na653 delivered on April 22, 1966
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal 1
In its reasoning explanation, the original judgment: (a) was leased by Defendant 1 of the first instance court to the effect that at 113 square meters of this site and its ground buildings were originally reverted to the Defendant; (b) was partitioned into 30 square meters and 83 square meters of this site; and (c) was sold to Nonparty 1; (d) the second instance court: (e) the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the Defendant; (e) the building at 30 square meters of the above site and its ground buildings were leased to Nonparty 2; (e) the first instance court, at the time when Nonparty 1 leased the above 113 square meters; (e) the right to file an appeal against the above 30 square meters and its ground buildings; (e) the Defendant sold the right to file an annual appeal against the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6; and (e) the Plaintiff sold the right to purchase the building in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s non-party 1 in the name of the Plaintiff and the non-party 1 in the name of the first instance court.
However, even if there was an agreement between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 in the first instance trial to sell the part of the dispute between 30 square meters and that of the above ground part to the Plaintiff, and the original Defendant and Nonparty 1 to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff, the fact alone cannot be readily concluded from Defendant 1 in the first instance trial to the Defendant 2 in the second instance trial, and the Defendant’s each transfer of ownership to the Defendant is invalid as a matter of course. If there is any ground for invalidation of the cause itself for the transfer registration of ownership to the Defendant from Nonparty 2 in the second instance trial, or if there is no reason for invalidation of the ownership transfer registration to the Defendant from Nonparty 2 in the second instance trial, there is a ground for invalidation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of Defendant 1 in the second instance trial from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 in the second instance trial.
However, the original judgment did not provide any explanation of the above reasons for the invalidation of each of the above reasons, but merely stated that there was an agreement with the original defendant and the non-party 1, and ordered the non-party 2 to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration from the defendant 1 in the first instance trial to the non-party 2. The defendant's order against the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 is null and void from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2. Therefore, in order to claim that the ownership transfer registration is null and void from the non-party 2, it is insufficient to determine the judgment in relation to the defendant as to the existence of the substantial reason for invalidation, and without doing so, without further explanation, it is sufficient to determine the existence of the above reasons. The judgment on the non-party 2's ownership transfer registration cannot be concluded to have been void from the judgment on the non-party 1 in the first instance trial or the non-party 2's judgment on the non-party 2's ownership transfer registration in the name of the non-party 2.
Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)