Relationship between acquisition, loss and registration of ownership for mid-term

As prescribed by the Mid-Term Management Act, the acquisition and loss of ownership in the mid-term period for which lawful registration has been completed takes effect only by completing the registration. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff had lawfully acquired the mid-term period in this case and received a final and conclusive judgment on the transfer of ownership following its acquisition, as long as the registration of transfer was not completed, the Plaintiff is merely the Plaintiff’s succession to the buyer’s status in the mid-term period.

Article 3 of the Mid-Term Management Act

Han Jin Korea Stock Company

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (84 Gohap3431)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the instruments listed in the attached list.

If compulsory execution against the above mid-term is impossible, 21,500,000 won shall be paid.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

In full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Certificate of Seal Imprint), Gap evidence Nos. 6 (No. 7), Gap evidence No. 8 (Urging to report the transfer of ownership), Gap evidence No. 3 (certificate of transfer), Gap evidence No. 5 (sales Contract), and the purport of the testimony of the above witness No. 4 (sales Contract), the defendant's possession of non-party 1 fuel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party 4") was not disputed between the parties, and the registration of the transfer of ownership was completed on March 5, 198 to the non-party 1, 198, and the non-party 1 had no record of the transfer of ownership over the above non-party 4's transfer of ownership over the above non-party 8's transfer of ownership over the above non-party 9's transfer of ownership to the non-party 1, 200, 2050 won of the above transfer of ownership over the above non-party 50's transfer of ownership.

As the cause of the claim of this case, the plaintiff was lawfully acquired the middle of this case and the final judgment was made on the registration of transfer of ownership following its acquisition, but the defendant was forcibly demoted and obstructed the plaintiff's registration of transfer of ownership, and the plaintiff did not complete the registration procedure. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lawfully acquired the middle of this case and sought transfer of the middle term to the defendant who is an illegal possessor based on his ownership. As such, as in the middle of this case, the acquisition and loss of the ownership in the middle term which was duly registered as prescribed by the Mid-Term Management Act takes effect only after completing the registration, and the transfer of ownership in the middle term cannot be deemed as acquiring the middle term's ownership. Thus, in this case, as long as the plaintiff did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership in the middle term of this case, the plaintiff did not have completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the middle term of this case, and as long as the plaintiff did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership in the middle term of this case, the plaintiff did not have succeeded to the buyer's status in the middle term of this case, and it cannot be argued.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case which is sought based on ownership on the premise that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the mid-term period of this case shall be dismissed without any further review. The plaintiff's appeal against this conclusion is justified and without any justifiable ground, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)