Cases where the registration of transfer of ownership is unlawful in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the legality of the registration;

A. Even if a registration made under the name of the creditor was made without any cause, the registration may be valid by agreement again by means of payment in substitution for the repayment of the obligation to the creditor, and even if the debtor wishes to be exempted from the lawsuit for cancellation of the registration by a third party between the creditor and the debtor, it does not necessarily mean that it is the most trade.

(b) An obligor after a complaint for opposing the rights of the obligor is served on him; and

such ratification may not be set up against the obligee even if it has been ratified to dispose of the rights.

Article 108 of the Civil Act, Article 138 of the Civil Act

Jung-won:

Defendant 1 and four others

Cheongju District Court Decision 66Na1944 delivered on January 25, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1944 delivered on January 25, 1968

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

The defendants' attorney's ground of appeal No. 1

According to soar writing, the plaintiff is a middle-class group, so it is clear that the plaintiff is a middle-class group, so there is no reason to criticize the original judgment by misunderstanding the plaintiff as being indicated by the Office of Education of Middle-Gun.

Judgment on the same ground 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, according to the evidence in the former part, Defendant 2 donated the forest land of this case to the Plaintiff on September 3, 1953, and received and managed it from the Plaintiff’s Government Hochi National School, and the Nonparty, the husband of Defendant 1, to Defendant 2 around 1962:

The plaintiff's non-party 2's assertion that the plaintiff's transfer registration was legitimate after the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party's allegation that the plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu