Other party to ratification of invalid acts

Where a registration for invalidation of cause has been made in succession, if the plaintiff, who is the real owner of the real owner of the registration prior to such registration, expresses his intention to confirm the validity of the registration and that he is the owner, the ratification shall also be effective on the persons under the middle of the registration.

Articles 139 and 142 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1774 delivered on April 15, 1969

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant 1 and eight others

Busan District Court (67Ga2261)

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) As to the real estate stated in the attached list, Defendant 1 was registered in Busan District Court Busan District Court No. 16397, Aug. 30, 1965; for preserving the right to claim the transfer registration due to purchase and sale reservation on the 28th of the same month; and for the registration of transfer of ownership due to purchase and sale on August 28, 199 of the same year, and for the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase reservation

(2) Defendant 2, as the receipt No. 18027 of September 24, 1802 of the same year with respect to the same real estate, is the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale on the 20th of

(3) Defendant 3, as the receipt No. 20985 of November 2, 2098 of the same year with respect to the same real estate, shall transfer the ownership of 1/2 of the ownership due to the sale on the first day of the same month.

(4) Defendant 4, as the receipt No. 23847 of December 7, 23847 of the same year with respect to the same real estate, shall transfer the ownership of 1/2 of the ownership due to the sale on the same day.

(5) Defendant 3, as the receipt No. 24585 of December 16, 24585 of the same year with respect to the same real estate, shall transfer the ownership of 1/2 of the ownership due to sale and purchase on the 10th of the same month.

(6) Defendant 5 and 6 are the registration of transfer of ownership due to trading on the 6th of the same month, which was received on May 13, 1966 by the same registry office.

(7) Defendant 7, as of December 26, 196, received on December 27, 196 by the same registry office, and as of October 11,491, 400 of ownership due to sale on May 26, 196, the registration of transfer of ownership right 4,000.

(8) Defendant 8, as of December 26, 196, received on December 27, 196 by the same registry office, and as of October 5 of the same year, the transfer of ownership 11,491, 2,001, due to sale and purchase, shall be registered.

(9) Defendant 5, as of December 26, 196, received on December 27, 196 by the same registry office, for the same real estate, has the registration of transfer of ownership 11,491, 2,745 due to sale and purchase on October 5 of the same year.

(10) Defendant 9 will implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of Defendant 7’s share transfer due to sale on April 26, 1967, No. 8410 of the same registry office with respect to the same real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) Judgment on the main defense of this case

The plaintiff denies the power of attorney of the defendant 2, but according to the testimony of the non-party 1 of the party witness non-party 1, the plaintiff's legal representative is legally appointed. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the merits

According to the contents written in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (the judgment, the statement of non-party No. 2, the protocol of non-party No. 3, and the protocol of non-party No. 3) without dispute as to the facts stated in the purport of the claim, as stated in the purport of the claim, the above real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff and it was impossible for the plaintiff to borrow money from the defendant No. 1 on Aug. 30, 1965, as stated in the purport of the claim, although the provisional registration of the defendant was made in the name of the defendant as a security first of all in order to borrow money from the defendant No. 1 on Aug. 30, 1965, it was cancelled upon the agreement with the defendant, and the defendant No. 2 would cancel the provisional registration for the purpose of securing his claim against the plaintiff in collusion with the non-party No. 3 by deceiving the plaintiff and the above defendant, and then the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made again by the joint name.

Therefore, the above transfer registration shall be null and void in its entirety, or in full view of the contents as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Agreements), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 (Agreements), 10-1 through 4 (applications for the transfer registration of ownership, power of attorney, certificate of seal impression, certificate of sale), and Eul evidence No. 5 (written evidence) acknowledged as genuine by defendant 4 himself as a result of examination of the defendant 4, and the purport of the party's pleading as a result of examination of the defendant 4, the above transfer registration of the above ownership by defendant 2, etc. to defendant 3, as stated in the purport of claim after the above transfer registration of ownership to Busan District Court around December 15 of that year, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants and the above non-party 3 of the above court for the cancellation registration of each transfer registration due to the invalidation of the cause, and withdrawal of the above registration was made at the 31st day of that month, and there is no evidence to confirm that the ownership of the above defendant 3's real estate after this.

However, as to the facts found in this case, the plaintiff ratified not only Defendant 3's registration but also the remaining defendants' registrations against Defendant 3. However, since the remaining defendants have invoked this case, the plaintiff's ratification becomes effective against the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff's provisional registration is deemed to be a new transfer of ownership between the plaintiff and the defendants, and as long as the plaintiff ratified the registration of transfer of ownership under the defendant's name, the plaintiff cannot request the cancellation of the provisional registration against the defendant.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit as above on December 31, 1965, and then on the plaintiff's creditor, the non-party 4, 5, 6, and defendant 3 and 4 agreed to dispose of the above real estate as the housing site and to liquidate their claims, and requested the plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit. As such, the plaintiff confirmed the above facts on the condition that their agreement should be reached, and this ratification is null and void. Thus, according to the evidence above, it can be acknowledged that the above non-party and the defendant 3 and 4 agreed to the above facts as alleged in the plaintiff's assertion on the date of the plaintiff's proposal, but it is difficult to acknowledge that the plaintiff had agreed to confirm the above facts based on all evidence, and thus, the representative of the above non-party's agreement on the above facts, other than the non-party and defendant 1, was not enough to acknowledge the above facts that the above non-party's claim amount was transferred to the non-party 6, as well as the above non-party's transfer of the above real estate to the non-party 3 and the above real estate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed in entirety without any need to determine the remainder. Therefore, the original judgment is unfair and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)