Method of changing and indicating the ownership of standing timber;

In double selling of standing timber, ownership of standing timber shall be transferred to a person who first made the method of public disclosure recognized as the method of changing ownership of standing timber by customary law.

Plaintiff

Lifetime Services

Daegu High Court Decision 66Na144, 145 delivered on October 27, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first ground for appeal by the plaintiff's agent is examined.

However, after the enforcement of the new civil law, the transfer of ownership does not take effect only on the basis of the sales contract and payment between the parties, and therefore, in the double sale of the standing timber, the ownership of the standing timber shall be transferred to the person who first made the sale of the standing timber in accordance with the customary law. Thus, as the court below has duly decided, if the defendant sold the standing timber to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 received the transfer of the standing timber before the completion of the method of trading the name, the ownership of the standing timber was transferred to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3. Accordingly, the defendant did not have any right against the above standing timber, and therefore, the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff, the transferee of the right of the above non-party 1, as the general practices on the sale of the standing timber, cannot be recognized, and it is not possible to accept all the arguments.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the permission of the Minister for Delivery on the disposal of the inspection property is not a permission of the disposal act for a specific commercial party, and it is valid to supplement the disposal act against it, and the permission shall continue to remain effective until the disposal is completed completely. Thus, if the defendant sells twice the main standing timber after obtaining permission from the Minister for Delivery, the permission shall lose its validity, and the subsequent trading act shall not be deemed to be a non-permission of the Minister for Delivery. Thus, the argument is groundless.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, there is no reason to regard that the Plaintiff, who did not have the method of public disclosure on the ownership change of the standing timber, acquired ownership, and in the double selling of the standing timber, it cannot be said that the purchase act was invalid since the purchaser was maliciously committed by the purchaser. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts within the original judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or incomplete deliberation, and thus, it cannot be adopted.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu