As long as the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party deceivings the plaintiff was lawfully rejected, the problem of the third purchaser's bad faith that should be taken into consideration after the fraud is recognized is not to intervene in this matter.

As long as the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party deceivings the plaintiff was lawfully rejected, the problem of the third purchaser's bad faith that should be taken into consideration after the fraud is recognized is not to intervene in this matter.

Article 110 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na85 delivered on April 20, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent are as follows:

(1) The court below decided that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 3, the deceased's decedent. Accordingly, the court below's request to request cooperation in the registration of transfer is not a false statement and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the above two persons knew the plaintiff and delivered the registration document, but it is difficult to recognize the fact that the above two persons deceiving the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove the non-party's bad faith. However, as long as the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 deceiving the plaintiff was lawfully rejected, the plaintiff's request for cancellation of the registration of transfer under the premise of deception should be rejected without further determination, and therefore, despite the fact that the third-party purchaser's bad faith's bad faith that should be taken after the fraud was recognized, the court below's explanation about the fact of the third purchaser's bad faith will be erroneous, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Even if a sales contract for the land of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as in the theory of lawsuit, was established, it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the content of the process of the lower judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion, which is an unfair contract, and thus, the second issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng