A. The purport of the provision of Article 555 of the Civil Act and the degree of indication in writing of the donor's intention;

(b) Whether extinctive prescription of a claim for registration of ownership transfer expires where the purchaser purchases real estate and continues to occupy it;

A. Article 555 of the Civil Act provides that a donor may rescind a gift not in accordance with a written document that is intended to prevent the donor from decent donation and at the same time avoid dispute over subsequent days by clarifying the donor’s intent. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to believe in the written document that the donor’s intent to give his/her own property to the other party appears in the document to the extent that the donor’s intention to give his/her own property

(b) The extinctive prescription of a right to claim the registration of ownership transfer of this real estate shall not run if it occupies such real estate after purchasing it to another person;

A. Article 55 of the Civil Act; Articles 162 and 186 of the Civil Act

B. en banc Decision 76Da148 delivered on November 6, 1976

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3484 delivered on September 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Article 555 of the Civil Act provides that a donor may rescind a contract of gift not in accordance with a written document that is not in accordance with a contract may prevent the donor from decently donating donation and at the same time avoid disputes arising from subsequent days by clarifying the donor's will. Therefore, it is sufficient for the parties to the contract to have written statement that the donor's intent to give his/her own property to the other party is clearly known through the document.

According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant is aware of the fact that the non-party 1, who is the defendant's third village of the real estate of this case, was divided from the defendant's father's non-party 2, the location of the non-party 3 who is the child of the above non-party 1, and the management of the real estate of this case. The defendant issued a sale certificate (Evidence A5) concerning the real estate of this case to the Dong on December 22, 1965 by directly completing the registration of ownership transfer on December 22, 1965. Thus, even if the written itself is a sale certificate, and it was prepared a certificate of gift by pretending to sell it, it is reasonable to interpret the above document as a written document under Article 55 of the Civil Act, considering the circumstances leading to the donation

Therefore, although the defendant's legal representative asserted that the defendant's intention of donation of this case was revoked at the court below (record 369, No. 369, Jan. 17, 1983), it would be erroneous that the court below failed to make a decision on this issue (the court below's decision on this case's gift of this case's real estate did not affect the conclusion of the judgment because it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the court below's decision on this case's lawsuit cannot be justified.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

If the court below reviewed the defendant's rejection of the defendant's evidence defense that the sale certificate (A No. 5) regarding the real estate of this case was forged by the record, the judgment below is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of finding facts against the rules of evidence or without any evidence, and therefore the argument is groundless.

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

As determined by the court below, if the non-party 3, prior to this case's donation, gains from the management of the real estate of this case, sold and delivered it to the plaintiff on November 5, 1970, and the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case and leases it to another person until the lawsuit of this case is brought, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the transfer registration of the real estate of this case shall not run. It is just in the judgment below to the same purport, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation

4. Therefore, the 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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)