The case holding that the purport of seeking a share transfer registration for the specific part purchased is included in the plaintiff's claim if the share transfer registration for the entire forest area is not allowed.

The case holding that the purport of seeking a share transfer registration for the specific part purchased is included in the plaintiff's claim if the share transfer registration for the entire forest area is not allowed.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

20,00

Msan District Court Decision 89Na4653 delivered on July 6, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Masan District Court Panel Division.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the purchase by the plaintiff from the defendant was not a 1/2 share of the forest of this case, but a specific part owned by the defendant, and ruled that the plaintiff's claim for this case was groundless, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

However, the court below acknowledged that the forest land of this case was registered as co-ownership of the defendant and the non-party 2, but in fact, three of the defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were owned by dividing the specific part and the part owned by the defendant and the non-party 2, and about 2 information was sold to the plaintiff. According to the case records, the forest land of this case had already been registered as co-ownership with the defendant on the register at the time when the contract was concluded between plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, respectively, and the part owned by the defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were sold to the plaintiff. Thus, according to the reasoning of the court below, the plaintiff's claim to purchase the specific part of the forest land of this case can be viewed as being purchased by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim to purchase the specific part of the land of this case without the plaintiff's claim to purchase the non-party 1 and the plaintiff's claim to purchase share.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)