Whether a housing name lawsuit against the Republic of Korea constitutes a violation of anti-social or good faith principle

I. The mere fact that the Defendant is in the form of a department and a branch is the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership cannot be readily concluded as an act anti-social or goes against the trust and good faith to seek the name of the Defendant’s residence as a means of litigation.

Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (84Gahap1715)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The text of the judgment of the court below can be provisionally executed.

피고는 원고에게 서울 성동구 중곡동 (지번 생략) 대 138.5평방미터 및 위 지상 연와조 세멘와즙 평가건주택 1동 건평 67.8평방미터중 별지도면표시 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,4 의 점을 순차로 연결한 ㉮부분(방 5.5평방미터), ㉯부분(욕실 2.8평방미터), ㉰부분(방 9.9평방미터), ㉱부분(온실 1,3평방미터), ㉲부분(마루 11.5평방미터), ㉳부분(부엌 7.5평방미터)을 명도하라.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 10 (each certified copy of register), the court below's on-site inspection results, and the whole purport of the pleadings by non-party 1 as a result of the appraisal by non-party 1 of the court below, the Seoul Seongdongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Jungdong-gu (Land Number omitted) 138.5 square meters and the brick menter and 67.8 square meters (67 square meters in the register) per unit of one house on the ground of one-to-story residential roof, which were originally owned by non-party 2. The Seoul District Court's branch court's 42386 square meters as of August 2, 1984, respectively, and the fact that the defendant occupied the whole part of the claim and the above site among the above houses, and there is no counter-proof evidence.

The defendant is the second 0 non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's counter

In addition, the defendant and the plaintiff are both the defendant and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff are all the husband and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff are all the husband's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's

Therefore, in this case where there is no assertion or proof that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the above housing and building site is null and void, or that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the above housing and building site, the defendant has the obligation to order the part of the above recognition and the whole of the above building site among the above housing and building site to the plaintiff presumed to be a legitimate owner of the above housing and building site. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with reasonable grounds. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95, 89 and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act to the plaintiff who is presumed to be a legitimate owner of the above housing

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-ro, Kim Jong-ho