Implementation of the gift contract not written and the validity of the indication of intention of cancellation

Even though the building of this case has been used as a worship of the plaintiff church by the defendant's non-written donation contract, if the defendant expressed his/her intent to cancel the above donation contract while the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer has not been completed, the above donation contract shall be legally rescinded.

Article 555 of the Civil Act

July 30, 1975, 74Da1844 decided Jul. 30, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 1098, Supreme Court Decision 23Du210 decided Jul. 210, 200, Decision No. 554 (5) of the Civil Act, Decision No. 521 of the Court Gazette 8612)

The Plaintiff Association

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court Branch (80 Gohap568)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

As to the real estate stated in the attached list, the Korea Minhyeong-dong Seoul East-gu Seoul East-gu Seoul East-gu Association shall take the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on April 15, 1980 and the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on October 10, 1974 with respect to the same real estate to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 shall carry out the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on October 10, 1974.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

After Defendant 1 newly constructed a building listed in attached Table 2, which is a church building at the time of September 6, 1974, on the site listed in attached Table 1, which was owned by Defendant 1, on which the ownership transfer registration has been completed, and the registration of preservation of ownership has been made on April 15, 1980 by the Seoul District Court Sung-dong Branch of the Seoul District Court on the above building as the receipt of No. 15007 on April 15, 1980, and as to the above site and building (hereinafter this real estate was reduced), there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that each ownership transfer registration, such as the purport of the claim, has been made in the future by the registration of each ownership.

The plaintiff used this real estate as a church church since he donated and donated this real estate on October 20, 1974 by the plaintiff to the defendant 1. The defendant Dong-dong, Seoul, caused the defendant 1 to have not completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning this real estate on February 22, 1979, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to this real estate on the ground of the donation on February 22, 1979. Since the above donation, which is the ground for the above transfer of ownership, in the name of the defendant Dong-dong, becomes null and void as anti-social legal act under the above circumstances, the plaintiff as the donee of this real estate, who is the defendant Dong-dong, sought the procedure for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership, which was null and void on behalf of the defendant 1, and the defendant 1 had been claimed to the defendant 1 to have fulfilled the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for the above donation on October 20, 1974, the defendant 1 had no dispute over the plaintiff 1's testimony and the defendant 2's testimony.

However, even if this real estate was a gift to the Plaintiff, the said gift contract was lawfully rescinded, so the above gift contract was already not in writing. In full view of the testimony and pleading of Non-Party 6, Defendant 1 did not complete the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of this real estate, which is the execution of the above gift contract, and there is no counter-proof that the above declaration of intention reached the Plaintiff around that time. Thus, the above gift contract was legally rescinded since it is proved that the above declaration of intention reached the Plaintiff around that time.

The plaintiff is called as a tobacco to give a donation to a church in the Gido, and only he does not do so in writing. Even if it is verbal, it cannot be cancelled because it is a gratar thickness. Therefore, it is argued that the application of Article 555 of the Civil Act is excluded in relation to a tobacco, but it is nothing more than the plaintiff's independent assertion.

Therefore, since the above contract of gift was retroactively terminated due to the above cancellation, the plaintiff's claim for objection, which is premised on the validity of the above contract of gift, should be dismissed for the reason that it is not necessary to examine the remaining issues, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)