(a) Whether the acquisition of ownership by the omission of the real estate which is the property devolving upon the ownership is the acquisition of the real right to the real estate under the provisions of law under Article 187 of the Civil Act

(b) The validity of an unregistered real estate registration where its ownership preservation registration has been made in the future of its owners because it is iced by several times;

(a)the acquisition of ownership under the non-real estate which is the property devolving upon the State is not governed by law;

(b) Even in cases where unregistered buildings have been pre-saleed and sold, if the last purchaser has made a registration of preservation of ownership, ownership shall be acquired;

Article 186 of the Civil Act

62A19 delivered on April 25, 1963

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na355 delivered on March 21, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the above property belonging to the non-party 1 from the country on December 28, 1964 that the non-party 1 purchased the above property from the non-party 1, but paid the price for the above building without going through the registration procedure for alteration of rights among the non-party 1. Since the above building was unregistered, the court below held that the defendant occupied the part indicated in the above judgment from February 19, 1962, and that there was no error of law regarding the defendant's possession of the above part of the building without holding that it was 15,00 won since the defendant's ownership was not registered under the above legal relations with the non-party 1's original judgment. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-party 1's assertion that the ownership of the above non-party 1 should not be registered under the non-party 1's own right to the non-party 1's own right to acquire the above property under the proviso to Article 187 of the Civil Act.

In the original judgment, there is no error in the determination of the evidence or the fact-finding, and there is no error in the judgment like the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. There is no argument.

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

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Justice)