(a) Whether the person who has completed the registration of ownership transfer has the interest in confirmation in the lawsuit for ownership confirmation filed;

B. Whether a person who has completed the registration of acquisition of ownership on the real estate, the provisional disposition of which is prohibited from disposal, can assert ownership against the provisional disposition obligee (negative)

A. The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the risks of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership cannot be allowed if the registration of ownership transfer has been made based on a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the registration of acquisition of ownership on the real estate whose disposal was prohibited was made, it cannot be set up against the creditor of the provisional disposition.

Articles 228 and 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da16,17 Delivered on March 25, 1980

Attorney Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Intervenor of an independent party

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na571,572 delivered on June 5, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

1. As to the grounds of appeal against the defendant by the independent party intervenor, according to the court below's legal determination, the independent party intervenor (hereinafter the intervenor's title) and the defendant brought a dispute over the ownership of the building of this case before the institution of the lawsuit of this case, and the decision in favor of the intervenor was rendered, and the decision became final and conclusive, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on March 7, 1978 in the name of the intervenor. In the lawsuit of this case, the interest of confirmation must be the interest of confirmation as the requirements for the protection of rights, and the interest of such confirmation is recognized only as the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and thus, the lawsuit of confirmation of ownership cannot be allowed if the ownership transfer registration has been made upon the final and conclusive judgment of winning the lawsuit of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1617, Mar. 25, 1980). Thus, the judgment below's decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles or legal principles as to the independent party's interest.

2. As to the ground of appeal against the plaintiff by an independent party intervenor:

The fact-finding by the court below as to the theory of lawsuit may be pride in light of the relation of evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below and its reasoning, and it cannot be found that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as to disposal documents, such as theory of lawsuit, and in case where the transferee of the real estate had registered the prohibition of disposal of the real estate as the obligor before the registration of the transfer, it cannot be set up against the provisional disposition obligee even if the transferee subsequently registered the acquisition of the ownership, and the court below's rejection of the intervenor's lawsuit from this point of view can be seen to the purport of rejecting the intervenor's claim (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da80,81 delivered on July 22, 1969). In so doing, it is impossible to find that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intervention of independent party, such as theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)