(c)whether there is a benefit in filing a lawsuit for the transfer registration of ownership (affirmative) despite the existence of a protocol of compromise in which the ownership of this building is "assigned by 3/10 of the shares of ownership" (affirmative);

If the conciliation clause of the conciliation protocol does not provide that "...... the ownership of the building in this case shall be transferred 3/10 of the ownership shares," the above conciliation protocol shall not be deemed to have made a statement of the intention to transfer the ownership (shares), and if so, the above conciliation protocol shall not be deemed to have made a statement of the intention to transfer the ownership (shares). Therefore, the above conciliation protocol cannot be executed with this conciliation protocol, so there is a benefit to file a lawsuit for the transfer registration of ownership (shares)

Article 40 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Articles 226 (Institution of Lawsuit), 206, 695 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na39387 delivered on March 6, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment below, on December 11, 1962, the court below determined that the above non-party 1 transferred 3/10 of the real estate of this case to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on the date for pleading of claim against the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 (the non-party 2 and the non-party 3's property heir, whose name was ○○○ or △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△). The court below rejected the execution clause of this case against the plaintiff's execution clause.

However, if the defendant et al. orders 1 to 16:4: 4: 4: 16: 16: 14, 200, 3/10 of the ownership share of the building in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) site and the building on the same ground, the plaintiff does not make the defendant et al. transfer the ownership transfer registration procedure to the defendant et al., so it is difficult to see that the above protocol of compromise was made with this protocol of compromise that the above statement of intention to transfer the ownership (share) cannot be executed, and if the defendant et al. were the heir of the defendant et al. in the above case, the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have a benefit in filing a lawsuit against the ownership transfer registration regardless of the existence of the above protocol of compromise.

Therefore, the issue is justified within this scope.

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 participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)