In the order of the transfer of standing timber, but the execution of the method of master is in the name of the Jeonju as it is, the cancellation of the transfer contract with the Jeonju and the Jeonju and the claim of ownership by the present owner.

If the ownership of standing timber was assigned to Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jung in succession under the former Civil Code, but there is a method of setting up against the transfer of real right, the method of setting up against Gap, and if the transfer between Eul is cancelled, it cannot be set up against Gap with the acquisition of the ownership of standing timber, and if the method of setting up the name, it may be set up against Gap, regardless of the cancellation of this case.

Article 178 of the Gu Residents Act

Han Sung-soo

Kim Weather

Gwangju High Court Decision 4292No776 delivered on June 16, 1960

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

On March 20, 1959, the original judgment on the first ground of appeal by the defendant, as to the plaintiff's first ground of appeal, was the plaintiff's acquisition of the standing timber, and if the non-party on the first ground of appeal cannot pay the remaining amount of the standing timber to the defendant by April 20 of that year, it can be acknowledged that the non-party on the first ground of appeal would give up this case, so even if the special agreement entered into force, the defendant can not assert the ownership of the standing timber as an effect of such special agreement, regardless of whether the special agreement already acquired the standing timber before that special agreement takes effect, and if the plaintiff's ownership of the standing timber was not denied, the court below should have determined that the non-party on the first ground of the original judgment would not have any effect on the plaintiff's execution of the original judgment on the transfer of the right to the standing timber under the former Civil Code, but the execution of the registration transfer method, which is the requirement for the transfer of the right to the plaintiff Gap's ownership, and therefore, the court below should have determined that the plaintiff's ownership cannot be set up against the plaintiff's non-party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the application of Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Lee B-ho (Presiding Justice)