logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 6. 22. 선고 71다786 판결
[소유권이전등기말소][집19(2)민,138]
Main Issues

At the time of the enforcement of the Civil Code, if the head of family dies after the death of the married head of family and there is no male who is to inherit the head of family, customs concerning the temporary heir until when the adopted child is selected after the death of the married head of family.

Summary of Judgment

At the time of the enforcement of the Civil Code, if the married couple left only his wife and died before the inheritance of the family, and the family head died after the death of the family head without his lineal ascendant and wife, it was customary that the family head and the property inheritance right exists to the wife of the married couple until the selection of the two.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 867 of the Civil Act, Article 990 of the Civil Act, Article 1001 of the Civil Act (former Law Relations)

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na940 delivered on March 11, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na940 delivered on March 11, 1971

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged the following facts as legitimate. According to the court below's decision that the above real estate was owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had been registered for ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 2, and that the non-party 3 was married with the non-party 2, but the non-party 1 was deceased on April 21, 1915, and the non-party 1 was deceased on March 29, 195, the non-party 1 was deceased on the non-party 3, who was the sole survival at the time of the non-party 1's acquisition of the above real estate under the non-party 1's name, and that the non-party 2 did not know that the non-party 1 had been registered for the non-party 1's acquisition of the above real estate under the non-party 1's name and the non-party 2 had no errors in the law regarding the non-party 1's acquisition of the above real estate under the non-party 1's name.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are not acceptable or acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)

arrow