No. 33 of the U.S. military statutes, where the title of registration was for a Korean person, and where the title of registration was for a Korean person before August 9, 1945

In case where Japan acquired ownership from Korea, but did not pass through the registration of ownership transfer, if it transferred ownership to a third party before August 9, 1945, it is not subject to ownership transfer under the military law No. 33.

Article 177 of the former Civil Code, Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, and Article 33 of the Military Affairs Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na163 delivered on January 14, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

In light of the judgment in the original judgment that the defendant agreed to directly implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration by omitting intermediate registration between Japan and Japan and the defendant and the deceased non-party 1, the above Japanese person was aware of the fact that the non-party 2 had done a legal act on behalf of the deceased non-party 1, and the defendant is not only the counter-party 2 of the legal act as the representative of the non-party 2, but also it is not justified in the judgment that the defendant agreed to allow the deceased non-party 1 to understand the procedure for ownership transfer registration on behalf of the deceased non-party 1 through the evidence stated in the original judgment, and there is no error in the original judgment that adopted the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground that there is no counter-party 2 document between the defendant and the non-party 3 and the non-party 2, and it cannot be concluded that each statement by the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 had been completely violated. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased it and the plaintiff acquired it, and there is no error in the original judgment.

In conclusion, the issue can not be adopted because it leads to criticism of the lower court's entire authority on the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

In this case, the Japanese person acquired ownership from the Korean person, but did not pass through the registration of ownership transfer, and the ownership was transferred to a third person, and the Japanese person acquired ownership and transferred ownership to a third person after completing the registration of ownership transfer. In August 9, 1945, the registration name should be distinguished from the case where the Japanese person had no real ownership but had been in a Japanese person, and the registration name was transferred to the Korean person on August 9, 1945, but the Japanese person did not own ownership to the Japanese person on August 9, 1945, but the former case was treated differently from the case where the third person was a Korean person, and the former case was treated differently from the case where the third person was a Korean person and was in the name of a Japanese person, there is no error of law in the original judgment bound by the judgment of remanded case.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

As long as the defendant agreed to directly implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration by omitting intermediate registration to the plaintiff's deceased father, the reason for the obligation to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the plaintiff's deceased father is the above agreement, and the original judgment recognizes the same facts as the ground for registration in ordering the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the defendant, but it cannot be said that it is an error of law as a ground for rectification and it is not an

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so 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)