A lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on one copy of the co-owned real estate and a necessary co-litigation

On the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition for part of public forest land, a lawsuit claiming the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure for the part acquired by co-owners as co-defendant can not be considered as a necessary co-litigation.

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Motion picture:

Gangwon-do et al. (Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 63Na370 delivered on February 11, 1964

The appeal by the defendant Kang Jin-jin shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant Jinjin country shall be borne by the attorney-at-law.

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant river line is reversed.

The part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gangwon-ship became final and conclusive in the judgment of the first instance.

The appeal by the defendant Kang Dong-dong and Dong Dong-dong shall be dismissed in entirety.

The costs of the lawsuit arising from the appeal by the defendant Kang Dong-dong and Dong-dong shall be borne by the said Defendants.

According to the statement in the defendant Kang Jin-gun's family register in the preparation of a copy of the defendant's family register in the defendant Kang Jin-gun's family register, which was bound by the records of the defendant's family register as of June 17, 1965, which was obvious that the defendant died on October 18, 1949. Thus, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful not only because the deceased was illegal as the defendant, but also this appeal filed by the defendant as the attorney by the head of the Dong as the defendant's legal representative, so it is so decided as per Disposition 1 and 2 by applying Article 3

On October 26, 1962, the decision of the court of first instance rendered by the defendant was made. However, it is evident that the defendant river did not file an appeal. However, since the plaintiff's main lawsuit is a claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the part acquired by acquiring one of the common forest land of the defendant, etc. as the reason that the acquisition of ownership was completed, the court below held that the lawsuit is a necessary co-litigation by designating the defendant, etc. as co-owner as co-defendant, and thus, the effect of the appeal is effective to the defendant river line which did not file an appeal, and it also decided that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as co-defendant river line of the court of first instance is also effective to the defendant river line which did not file an appeal. However, if the forest land belongs to four co-owners, it is nothing more than the co-ownership of ownership in the form of share, and it does not necessarily belong to the right to dispose. Therefore, the court below's decision does not necessarily require the co-defendant's co-defendant to be concluded.

Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kang Dong-dong and Dong-dong Attorney.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal:

Although the defendant et al. responded that the forest land in the first instance is owned by the defendant et al., it is clear in the record that the forest land in this case is owned by the defendant et al., but the ownership of the defendant's belt was registered in the name of the defendant, but it is not owned by an individual but owned by the defendant's clan property. However, in view of the purport of the defendant et al.'s response, the above statement in the original instance is merely an explanation of the course in the name of the representative of the defendant et al. by supplementing the answer in the first instance trial. However, the court below held that the statement in the first instance court is deemed as a confession of the plaintiff's assertion and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the statement in the first instance court to revoke the confession in the first instance court. However, the appeal on this point is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff purchased the original forest portion is merely merely an explanation of the plaintiff's possession of the original forest portion, and there is no need to examine and determine whether the plaintiff purchased the original forest portion from co-owners to whether the plaintiff purchased it from all co-owners or to whether the plaintiff purchased it from each individual. In addition, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's possession satisfies the requirements of Article 162 (1) of the Gu Resident Act, and therefore there is no need to determine whether the plaintiff was a duty of preference at the beginning of the possession. Moreover, other arguments can not be adopted merely because it criticizes evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive

(3) As to the third ground for appeal:

According to each evidence admitted by the court below, only the part that the plaintiff possessed among the 3th half of the 3th half of the 3th half of the 3th half of the 12-1 forest land, Chocheon-gun, Chocheon-gun, Chocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Park 12-1 forest land, and the part that the 30th half of the 30th of the 30th of the 30th of the 30th of the 12th of the 30th of the 12th of the 30th of the 30th of the 30th of the 30th of the 300th of the 196th of the 30th of the 12th of the 300th of the 30th of the 300th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 198

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, so it is decided as per Disposition 5.6.

This judgment is in unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)