(a) In cases where real estate was transferred in full, whether the final transferee can directly request the first transferor to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership after obtaining a claim for registration of transfer of ownership from the intermediary;

B. In the case of "A", whether the court needs to give an opportunity to state its opinion by pointed out the legal matters on whether the first transferor's consent was obtained or not

A. In a case where real estate was transferred by a transfer of real estate, the final transferee cannot directly request the first transferor to register the ownership transfer in his name unless there is an agreement on the transfer of real estate, and the final transferee is required to have an agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee in order to exercise the right to claim the transfer transfer registration directly on the grounds of an agreement on the registration of middle omission. Thus, if the last transferee is transferred the right to claim the transfer registration by the intermediate omission, if the first transferor does not agree on the transfer of ownership, the last transferee cannot request the first transferor to implement the transfer registration procedure on the grounds of the transfer of ownership.

B. In a case where real estate was transferred before transfer, if the first transferor asserts that he had no obligation to perform the procedure for the transfer of ownership from the beginning to the last transferee who had no relationship with him, the court need not give the last transferee an opportunity to state his opinion on the legal matters related to whether the first transferor consents to the transfer of the right to claim the transfer of ownership.

A. Articles 186 and 449 of the Civil Act; Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da5761 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1479), Supreme Court Decision 93Da47738 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1799), Supreme Court Decision 91Da36550 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong192, 1286)

[Judgment of the court below]

Urban Development Corporation in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na4059 delivered on March 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In a case where real estate was transferred before the transfer, the final transferee cannot directly file a claim for the registration of transfer in his name with the first transferor unless there is an agreement on the registration of transfer of real estate. In order for the last transferee to exercise the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership directly with the first transferor on the ground of an agreement on the registration of transfer omission, that is, the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee is required in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee on the registration of interim omission, and that there is an agreement on the omission of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81, Dec. 13, 1983; 91Da5761, Apr. 23, 1991; 93Da4738, May 24, 1994). However, even if the last transferee obtained the ownership transfer from the intermediate transferee, if the first transferor does not consent to the transfer of ownership due to the first cause, if the last transferee does not agree to the transfer of ownership.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party who is the owner of the rental apartment of this case, was entitled to preferential right as the tenant of this case converted the above rental apartment into the apartment unit on July 8, 1994, concluded a sales contract with the defendant for the purchase price of KRW 39,769,100 and paid only the down payment of KRW 8,871,60 on the same day and notified the defendant of the transfer of the right to claim for the transfer of the above apartment on the same day. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant as the transferee of the above right to claim for the transfer of ownership and at the same time received the remaining amount of KRW 30,887,50, and at the same time, sought the implementation of the transfer registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as of July 8, 1994 as the purchaser of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff and the non-party's agreement without the defendant's consent cannot exercise the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the above apartment unit. Thus, the court below's decision is justified and dismissed.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the records, it is clear that the defendant is not obliged to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer from the beginning to the plaintiff who has no relationship with the defendant. Therefore, the court below should point out the legal matters on whether the defendant consents to the transfer of the above right to claim the registration of ownership transfer and give the plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion. Thus, there is no ground for holding that the court below erred by neglecting the duty to state his opinion in accordance with Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)