(a) Claim for the registration of transfer of ownership directly to the first transferor by the end transferee and the requirement for the agreement of middle omission registration;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be said that there was an agreement on the omission of intermediate registration solely by the delivery of a sale certificate, power of attorney and a certificate of seal impression of blank in which the initial transferor refused the omission of intermediate registration, and thus the buyer’s disturbance was blank;

A. In the event that real estate was transferred by transfer, the final transferee cannot claim the registration of transfer under his own name for the first transferor unless there is an agreement on the registration of transfer of real estate. In order for the last transferee to exercise the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership directly to the first transferor on account of an agreement on the registration of transfer omission, it is required that there was an agreement on the omission of registration between the first transferor and the last transferee, in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee on the registration of intermediate omission.

(b) The case holding that it cannot be said that there was an agreement on the omission of intermediate registration solely by the delivery of a sale certificate, power of attorney and a certificate of seal impression of blank in which the initial transferor refused the omission of intermediate registration, and thus the buyer’s disturbance was blank;

Article 186 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 63Da1009 delivered on Jun. 2, 1964, 78Da1818 delivered on Nov. 28, 1978 (Gong1984, 162) b. Supreme Court Decision 64Da587 delivered on Sept. 22, 1964 (No. 122Du120) (No. 70Da2996 delivered on Feb. 23, 1971) 81Da254 delivered on July 13, 1982 (Gong1906) (Gong106)

Kim Jong-bong

Kim Jong-deok

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na23891 delivered on December 28, 1990

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant who ordered the registration of transfer of ownership in excess of 1/2 of the defendant's shares in relation to 13,229 square meters and 6,614 square meters of woodland 13,229 square meters and 101-3,00 square meters of Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon-si, and the defendant's shares in possession, shall be reversed, and the part of the case shall be remanded to the collegiate division of the Seoul Special Metropolitan

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant, who owned one-third share of the land in this case, transferred the above share of one-half of the above share to the non-party Kim Jung-ok to the non-party Kim Jong-ok as payment in kind of debt 3 million won to the non-party, and the purchaser had issued a certificate of sale in blank, power, and the defendant's certificate of seal impression. The non-party again transferred the above share in this case to the plaintiff as payment in lieu of part of the debt amounting to 40 million won against the plaintiff, and delivered the above documents to the plaintiff in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the defendant, the non-party, and the plaintiff on the intermediate omission registration as to the above share in this case, and therefore, the defendant

In the case where real estate was transferred before transfer, unless there is an agreement on the registration of the intermediate omission, the final transferee, in order to exercise the right to claim the ownership transfer registration directly to the first transferor on the ground of an agreement on the registration of the intermediate omission, that is, in order to exercise the right to claim the ownership transfer registration directly to the first transferor, it is required that there was an agreement on the omission of the intermediate registration between the first transferor and the last transferee, except with the first transferor’s agreement on the registration of the intermediate omission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Da881, Dec. 13, 1983; 78Da1818, Nov. 28, 1978; 64Da1900, Mar. 23, 1965; 63Da1009, Jun. 22, 1964).

Unless there are other special circumstances in this case where the Defendant, the first transferor, refused the omission of intermediate registration, the mere fact that Nonparty Kim Jung-ok, the intermediate transferor, as at the time of the original adjudication, transferred the land shares in this case to the Plaintiff by payment in kind, and transferred the documents, such as a sales certificate, etc. issued by the Defendant, which was issued by the said Nonparty, cannot be deemed to have reached an agreement on the omission of intermediate registration between the original and the Defendant. The lower court should make a further determination as to whether there was an agreement on omission of intermediate registration between the original and the Defendant. The lower court determined that there was an agreement on omission of intermediate registration solely for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, is ultimately an error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the omission of intermediate registration, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to

Therefore, the judgment of the court below as to this part is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)