Whether or not a donor may assert that it is an unlawful possession to the person who has occupied it by pre-purchase only with a registration title on the object of donation, and the other party in a revocation of donation.

A person who has occupied a site by sub-purchase from a donee shall have a legitimate title to possess it, and the donor shall not assert that the site is illegal possession, unless the donee revokes his/her donation, only by virtue of the fact that he/she has a registered title to the site, and the donor may not regard the donation as illegal possession. However, the declaration of intention to cancel the contract of donation may be cancelled, but the declaration of intention to cancel the contract of donation shall be made against the other party to the contract of donation and shall be made to the person who acquired the object of the donation, and even

Article 555 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 76Na2 delivered on September 15, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's ownership of the building site was originally owned by the non-party 1 on July 23, 1930, because the non-party 2 (the plaintiff's first relative) purchased the building site together with the above ground building owned by the non-party 3 and donated it to the non-party 4 in around 1953, and the above non-party 4 sold it to the non-party 5, and the defendant acquired on October 19, 1959 and used it until the present time. The court below recognized the fact that the defendant purchased the above fact from the above person and purchased it to the non-party 5, and recognized the fact that the defendant purchased it from the above person, and the process or contents of the fact-finding in recognizing the above fact, it is just in view of the evidence and the defense that the non-party 1 did not have any donation pointing out the defendant's donation, and there is no error in the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence as asserted.

Judgment on the third ground for appeal

However, if the land was occupied and used as a gift from its owner and the defendant purchased and sold it, the possession of the above site by the defendant is occupied by the non-party 4 and the defendant possessed by the non-party 2. Thus, the defendant has a legitimate title to possess it. The donor cannot assert that the land was illegal possession by the defendant, the possessor, and even if the donor did not cancel the above donation, the expression of intent to cancel the donation can be cancelled. However, even if the plaintiff's declaration of intention to cancel the donation should be made against the other party to the contract of donation and the purchaser of the object of the donation expressed his intention to cancel it, the cancellation of the donation shall not take effect because it was not directly done to the non-party 4, the other party to the contract of donation. However, since the court below assumed the cancellation of the contract and held that it does not affect the execution (delivery) of the contract, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, it does not affect the defendant's right to claim the cancellation of the donation without any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's right.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)