[소유권이전등기][공1993.4.1.(941),934]
The case holding that the right to request the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of title trust between persons in the mutual title trust relationship and the settlement of the liquidation money generated due to increase or decrease in the area as a result of a disposition of replotting does not have the relation of simultaneous performance by making a registration of joint ownership of the previous land as
The case holding that the right to request the registration of transfer of ownership due to the termination of title trust between persons in the mutual title trust relationship and the settlement of the liquidation money generated due to increase or decrease in the area as a result of a disposition of replotting does not have the relationship of simultaneous performance by separately specifying the land substitution.
Article 536 of the Civil Act
Law Firm Taecheon Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant] Tae-gu and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City
Seoul High Court Decision 91Na52271, 52288 decided Apr. 29, 1992
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s attorney).
The court below determined that the above shares of the non-party 1 were owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1.
According to the relevant evidence and the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of transfer of shares or the right to defense of simultaneous performance, etc. which are found to be erroneous by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.