The legal relationship of a person who purchased real estate at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Resident Act but not registered within six years from the enforcement date of the Civil

If the Gu residents' law purchased real estate at the time of the enforcement of the Civil Code but did not register it within six years from the enforcement date of the Civil Code, the ownership of the above real estate acquired through the above sale was lost in accordance with Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Code. However, since the above sale is effective, the seller shall have the right

Article 10 of Addenda to the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 24311 (Gong1992, 1274) (Law No.1992, Jan. 11, 1991) (Gong1991, 726) (Gong1992, 1274)

Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Kim Shin (Attorney Kim Shin)

Busan District Court Decision 91Na5034 delivered on April 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the second ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The judgment of the court below on the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff occupied the forest of this case from April 5, 1962 to 20 years) is justified in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possession of real estate in the course of prescription acquisition, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts. Ultimately, it is nothing more than misunderstanding the determination of evidence belonging to the whole authority of the court below and misunderstanding

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1-1 (1)

The court below held that, since the deceased non-party 1 purchased the forest of this case from the non-party 2 on June 28, 1938, but did not register within six years from the date of enforcement of the Civil Act, the ownership of the forest of this case was lost pursuant to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, but since the above sale is effective, the above sale is therefore the above non-party 2 shall have the right to claim ownership transfer registration as a claim against the above non-party 2. The decision of the en banc Decision 76Da148 delivered on November 6, 1976 by the party member pointing out the lawsuit, it is reasonable to interpret that the buyer's right to claim ownership transfer registration does not go against the extinctive prescription, and therefore, it is not acceptable to criticize the court below that it made a decision contrary to the Supreme Court decision.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1-2

The court below held that the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant who sold the forest of this case against the non-party 2 cannot be permitted, since there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the above non-party 1 or the plaintiff has reached three agreements on the interim omission registration between the defendant and the non-party 2, including the above non-party 2, and the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 on June 28, 1938 as to the above forest of this case, although the plaintiff received or succeeded to the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the forest of this case against the non-party 2, who sold the forest of this case from the deceased non-party 1, the above non-party 2 without being sold the forest of this case to the above non-party 1 and transferred the forest of this case to the above non-party 1, and the above non-party 1 failed to obtain the transfer registration of ownership, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim the transfer registration.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)