Cases of incomplete deliberation on joint buyers

In the event that the applicant and the Nonparty are joint buyers, it is illegal to judge whether they are simple co-owners as co-owners or they are purchased as a partnership.

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Respondent Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na263 delivered on November 22, 1978

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiff's supplementary nature and the grounds of appeal of the same Article are examined comprehensively.

According to the judgment below, on the premise that the applicant and the non-party 1 entered into a sales contract with the seller other than the respondent for the real estate as a co-owner, the court below held that the respondent and the non-party 1 received the remaining payment from the co-party 1, the co-party 1, the co-party 1, the co-party 1, and delivered a notice to the effect that the above non-party 1, as the co-party 1's co-party 1's joint purchaser, withdraws from the business agreement and transferred all rights to the applicant, and transferred them to the applicant, but the reason is not sufficient to prove that the parties to the sales contract have agreed or agreed on the change in the buyer's status. Further, the respondent and the non-party 1 did not receive the remaining payment after the expiration of the due date for the payment of the remaining payment, and that the buyer received the payment from the above non-party 1, the co-party 1, the co-party 1, around July 15, 1977, and delivered the documents transferred to the buyer, and fulfilled the remaining payment.

However, the court below's decision has following reasons such as incomplete hearing and lack of reason.

In other words, according to the explanatory materials, although the applicant and the non-party 1 are the co-owners, they do not examine and decide whether they are the simple co-owners or the partnership was purchased as a co-owners. If the co-owners are the co-owners of the co-ownership relationship, the seller, etc. is liable to transfer one-half shares to both the buyers. If the purchaser is the purchaser's partnership, the purchaser shall be liable to transfer the ownership for one-half shares. If the purchaser's partnership is purchased the purchaser's partnership, the claimant and the respondent, etc. who are aware of the dispute over the existence of the co-purchase's qualification with the non-party 1's deceitful act against the non-party 1 by impliedly or in cooperation with the plaintiff and the non-party 1, who received the remaining price at the request of the non-party 1, delivered the documents required for transfer of ownership to the purchaser in blank, and then the respondent et al.'s act can be seen as legitimate performance of the contractual obligation to the non-party 2's partnership, the court below's decision should be reversed.

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)