[소유권이전등기][집18(3)민,281]
If the plaintiff again purchased the property on the condition that he will immediately transfer the property from the defendant who received the property devolving upon its payment in full and immediately transfer the property from the country on behalf of the defendant, against the country on behalf of the defendant, the right to be preserved for such provisional disposition cannot be deemed to have already been realized on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of the property devolving upon the defendant has been made.
If the plaintiff, who purchased the property devolving upon the defendant, again against the country by subrogation of the defendant, obtained a provisional disposition against the country for the preservation of the defendant's right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership due to the purchase of the above real estate, and completed the registration, the above registration in the name of the defendant in the defendant's name is valid, even if the defendant's intervenor, after the registration of provisional disposition was entered, made the registration of transfer from the country to the defendant's name due to the exercise of subrogation right on the ground that he purchased the above real estate from the defendant, and then made the registration of transfer of ownership under his own name, the above registration in the name of the defendant in the defendant's name cannot
Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da2651, 2652 Decided February 28, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 4294Doggggrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr
Plaintiff
Defendant
Intervenor joining the Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na727 delivered on May 20, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.
1. The judgment of the court below is the original property devolving upon which the defendant purchased 287,00 won from the State on July 31, 1965 and paid in full the above price on April 4, 1966, and the defendant's assistant intervenor purchased the above real estate from the defendant on August 3, 1965 and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the State on November 29, 1969 through the defendant in favor of the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration filed against the defendant and the State (by subrogation of the defendant), and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the above assistant's name on June 28, 1966 on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the State on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer registration was made under the name of the defendant's provisional disposition against the State on June 26, 1966. The above registration of ownership transfer in the name of the intervenor was also valid after the execution of the above provisional disposition against the defendant's obligee's right to purchase.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the registration made by the defendant joining the defendant on the basis of lawful evidence was made on the ground of trade on August 3, 1965, and held that the above trade contract between the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant cannot be deemed to have been made by false marking in collusion with the defendant joining the defendant, even though all the evidences of the plaintiff's submission are admitted
In light of the records in detail, it is difficult to find out the misunderstanding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence in the above fact-finding process, and therefore, the discussion of the theory of the lawsuit is groundless.
3. A third party who purchased real estate which is the object of the judgment from the defendant to the defendant before such transfer registration based on the final and conclusive judgment is completed after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, and thereby completed the transfer registration based on the ownership transfer registration, does not constitute a successor after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 4294Du3621, Nov. 21, 1961; Supreme Court Order 69Da80, Oct. 23, 1969). Accordingly, in this case, even if the plaintiff purchased such real estate from the defendant and received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that he purchased it, as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be accepted by the argument that the transfer registration based on the final and conclusive judgment was not completed within the original time limit of the final and conclusive judgment against the defendant on the ground that he purchased the real estate from the defendant, which was subrogated in the above final and conclusive judgment.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with the opinion of all participating judges, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court