Whether Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act apply to a payment contract in kind

Article 607 and Article 608 of the Civil Code shall apply to the reservation of accord and satisfaction, but shall not apply to the accord and satisfaction.

Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2227 delivered on January 31, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 1093Da1093 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 16 ① Civil Code 608 delivered on the Official Gazette 39, Civil Code Article 607(3)475 delivered on the summary of the decision)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court of the first instance (78Gahap81)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 22, 197, under the receipt of No. 74312 on August 23, 197, with respect to the plaintiff as to the 18th 6th flusium 1, 1, 1, 3, 6th 6th 6th flusium underground, and 4th 6th 6th flusium in the 18th flusium, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same content as the description of the claim, except that the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The original land owned by the non-party 1 was purchased from the non-party on June 1, 1975 and the plaintiff newly constructed a building on which the purport of the claim was stated on the ground (hereinafter the building was completed on April 1, 1976). In the construction of the building, the construction permit was granted under the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party, who is the land owner, under the above non-party's name, and the non-party was registered as the owner on the house register. After that, the registration of ownership transfer was made from the non-party 2 to the non-party 2, and the title of the owner on the house register was changed to the non-party 2. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer was made under the non-party 2 on August 11, 1976 and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer was made again under the non-party 2's name and there was no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff's new construction and acquisition of the above non-party's ownership under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's registration of ownership transfer under the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 7's new construction registration of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

The plaintiff asserted that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the non-party 2 was made at the market price of the building in this case, which was equivalent to KRW 2,500,000,000, but the non-party 1 transferred the building to the non-party 2 as a payment in kind in the amount of KRW 1,000,000 to the non-party 2 violates Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act and thus null and void. However, Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act apply to the pre-contract for payment in kind, but are not applicable to payment in kind, and therefore, the above plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim on this building is without merit, which is based on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership by the non-party 2 is null and void. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Lee Han-soo (Presiding Judge)