logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1991. 1. 25. 선고 90다10858 판결
[소유권확인][집39(1)민,81;공1991.3.15.(892),847]
Main Issues

Whether a clan acquires ownership solely by termination of a title trust where the woodland or land owned by it was transferred to a clan member under the name of the clan (negative)

Summary of Judgment

A person who was under circumstances pursuant to the Forest Survey Decree or the Land Survey Ordinance shall acquire ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan has been entrusted with the forest land or land that was owned by it to a clan member, the above circumstance’s title holder shall acquire ownership, terminate the title trust and file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership in the position of the truster under the title trust contract. Therefore, if the title truster acquired ownership and the title truster’s clan may file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership, it shall not be deemed that he acquired ownership

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 31 and 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff-Appellee

Gwangju District Court Decision 201Na14487 delivered on July 1, 201

Defendant-Appellant

Korea

Judgment of the lower court

Suwon District Court Decision 89Na8375 delivered on September 18, 1990

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that each of the lands listed in the separate sheet is unregistered based on macrofics and owned by the plaintiff in the original form, and as to each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of the land situation in Japan, the name of the non-party who was a member of the plaintiff at the time, and as to the land listed in the third list, the land listed in the same list was trusted in the same non-party name. The plaintiff clan decided to terminate the title trust relationship for each of the above lands by opening a clan General Assembly on October 15, 1989, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff clan decided to terminate the title trust relationship for the above lands and notified the descendants of

However, even if a person who was under the circumstances pursuant to the Forest Survey Decree or the Land Survey Ordinance acquires ownership in the original, creative, and even if the clan has entrusted the forest land or land that was owned by it to a clan member, the above situation titleholder acquires ownership, the title truster, terminate the title trust and file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer in the position of the truster under the title trust contract.

As determined by the court below, since the plaintiff clan was given a title trust to the above non-party and was in the name of the above non-party, the owner of the land indicated in the attached list is clear that he was the above non-party, and even if the plaintiff clan terminated the above title trust agreement, the registration of ownership transfer was not completed in the name of the non-party, so the plaintiff

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the above land situation or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the change in real rights. The arguments are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-수원지방법원 1990.9.18.선고 89나8375
참조조문