(a) a person who may invoke the claim of extinctive prescription;

B. Whether it can be deemed as ratified solely on the ground that there was no long-term objection with the knowledge of the transit of a registration invalidating the cause (negative)

A. The extinctive prescription may be invoked where it is necessary to preserve its claim by the obligor as well as the obligor directly profits therefrom, but a person who does not have a claim against the obligor against the obligor may not invoke the extinctive prescription claim in subrogation.

B. The mere fact that a long-term objection has not been raised with knowledge of the transit of a registration null and voiding the cause cannot be deemed as ratified.

(a) Articles 162 and 404 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da407 delivered on June 26, 1979 (Gong1979, 12038)

male dyeum

The number of attorneys-at-law Lee Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-at-law

Chuncheon District Court Decision 89Na3421 delivered on October 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s joint name completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1 on February 7, 1983 after the transfer of ownership was made on May 12, 1975 with respect to the forest of this case, which was owned by Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1’s joint name on May 10 of the same year on the ground that he purchased the forest of this case on February 6, 1975, and the Plaintiff purchased the forest of this case solely from the above Lee Jong-chul, and through Defendant 1, the Plaintiff paid the price to the above Lee Jong-chul through the above Lee Jong-chul. However, Defendant 1 received and possessed the registration right necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest of this case, the certificate of personal seal impression, and the certificate of seal impression, etc., by forging the sale certificate as if he purchased the forest of this case jointly with the Plaintiff.

In light of the records, the process of selecting evidence preparation which was conducted by the court below in conducting the above fact-finding is justified, and there is no illegality of pointing out the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

Although the statute of limitations can be invoked when it is necessary to preserve its own claim by the obligor as well as the obligor directly profits and the obligee against the obligor, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to be in the position of subrogated recourse to the statute of limitations of the theory of the above-mentioned rule because the obligee does not have any claim against the above-mentioned rule.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription.

With respect to the third point:

The judgment of the court below is identical to the lawsuit that did not explain the defendants' assertion of ratification of the invalidation of the lawsuit, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff ratified it only on the ground that the plaintiff did not raise a long-term objection, such as the theory of lawsuit, even though he knows the transit of registration which was null and void (the records show that the plaintiff urged the defendant 1 to transfer his ownership to the defendant 1). The judgment of the court below's rejection of the above judgment did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the ground for reversal is groundless

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)