Where a registration of a building has been made by a fraudulent act, whether the registrant is entitled to exercise his/her ownership

Even if the registration of a building was made by a fraudulent act, the registrant of the registration may exercise the ownership of the building until such registration is restored as it has been finally revoked by the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (71Ga1516)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The defendants ordered the plaintiff to issue an order to the building listed in the attached Table 1, deliver the real estate listed in the attached Table 2, and jointly and severally pay 10,000 won per month from April 6, 1971 to the above order.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The part against the Defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 11, 1971 with respect to this building stated in the separate list No. 1, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made on the ground of sale and purchase on April 5 of the same year before the plaintiff, and the above building is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff. The defendant et al.'s attorney as the first owner of this building is the ownership of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2, who sold the building to the non-party No. 3 on March 18, 1970 and the transfer registration was made with the non-party No. 3, but the contract between the above non-party No. 3 was rescinded due to the non-party No. 5,000 won and the non-party No. 3's non-party No. 3's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's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 No. 1's claim for cancellation of ownership.

Meanwhile, the facts that the Defendants occupied and used this building are the persons of the Defendants, and according to the appraiser non-party 5's appraisal result, if the above building is leased to another party, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff could benefit from the above recognition amounting to KRW 80,000 per month. Thus, the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the above occupation of the Defendant, etc., and the Defendants are obliged to order the Plaintiff to order the building, and to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 80,00 per month from June 12, 1971 to the completion of name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed in an unfair manner. This conclusion is just in the original judgment and there is no ground for appeal filed by the defendant, etc., and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List]

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju