The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law by omitting the judgment on the grounds of prescription as stated in the counterclaim

If the purport of the counterclaim is to claim the fulfillment of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription, the purport of the counterclaim is to say that the counterclaim is the owner of the above real estate, and thus, it also includes the purport of defense that the counterclaim’s principal claim against the counterclaim seeking the confirmation of ownership and the compensation for damages arising from the rent should be dismissed, on the ground that the counterclaim is the owner of the above real estate. However, the lower court’s determination that the foregoing real estate is owned by the counterclaim without any determination on the grounds of the claim for the acquisition by prescription by the counterclaim, which is an independent defense, has affected the conclusion of the judgment by neglecting the judgment on the above defense for the acquisition by prescription, which is an independent defense.

Articles 193 and 242 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Na335, 336 decided July 25, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3.

1. According to the records, the defendant is the land owned by the defendant prior to the purchase through the above non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7. The transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff was void without any legitimate reason since the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff was made under the premise that the above registration is valid, rather than that the above registration should be cancelled as the counter-party 1, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7, the non-party 1 acquired the ownership transfer registration under the condition that the ownership transfer registration was completed on the non-party 1, the non-party 9, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired the ownership transfer registration under the above premise that the above registration was valid.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on the above housing site is consistent with the substantive relationship for the reason as stated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the defendant's claim that the registration has been completed without any reason, and thus, cannot be found in the defendant's primary counterclaim or rejection of such claim. However, with respect to the defendant's above conjunctive counterclaim claim, the part of the above conjunctive counterclaim claim is still pending in the court below because the court below did not deliberate and decide it. Thus, even though the court below did not err in its decision, the court below did not err in its decision, and the purport that the defendant is seeking the execution of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership on the above housing site by the completion of acquisition by prescription as to the above housing site, the court below has already acquired ownership on the above housing site, and thus, it should be dismissed as well as the purport that the plaintiff's claim seeking compensation for damages against the defendant on the ground that the above housing site is the owner of the above housing site, and the court below did not conclude that the above defendant's right of possession and defense is without merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)