The meaning of the judgment referred to in Article 187 of the Civil Act

The judgment under Article 187 of the Civil Act refers to only the case where the formation of the real right to real estate takes effect by the judgment itself, and the judgment with the same contents as ordering the execution of the procedure for the registration of real estate ownership transfer on the grounds of any legal act between the parties is not included. Therefore, the legal compromise protocol which merely expresses the intent to implement the procedure for the registration of real estate ownership transfer does not include the judgment under Article 187 of the

Article 187 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1721 delivered on August 17, 1965 (Kadad 1656 Supreme Court Decision 13 ② citizen 63 Decided October 8, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 17Da568 delivered on June 30, 197, Supreme Court Decision 70Da568 delivered on June 30, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 188Da104 delivered on March 11, 197, Supreme Court Decision 187Da294 delivered on March 11, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 74Da882 delivered on March 11, 1975)

The Foundation shall be the Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation

The general meeting of the literature society;

The legal branch of the literature and the alumni Association;

Manishing water

Busan District Court Musan Branch Court (74Gahap66)

Of the original judgment, the part of the judgment against the defendant Cho Chang-gu Association of Korea against the law shall be modified as follows:

The defendant Cho Chang-chul shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 11,489,200 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from May 11, 1974 to the full payment.

All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims and plaintiffs' appeals against the legal representative of the Seodaemun-gu Council are dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Cho Chang-chul Association are divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and the remainder is the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal arising between the same defendant, the plaintiffs and the defendant leaps shall be borne by each of the plaintiffs.

As a principal claim, the plaintiffs are the plaintiffs' registrations of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 4, 1970, which was the registration receipt of Busan District Court Musan Branch No. 3991 on March 23, 1970 as to the 31st flusium 11-3, Masan-dong 11-3, Masan-si, Masan-si, and 12-1, 12-1, and 86th flusium 891, and the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of the above two parcels of real estate is implemented on June 30, 1965 as to the claim for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and the procedure for cancellation of preservation registration on the ground of the former two parcels of real estate.

The court costs shall be borne by the defendants, and if the defendant Cho Chang-scop Association is unable to execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate as a preliminary claim, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to 24,420,000 won per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant's Chang-gu Association of Law and a declaration of provisional execution.

In addition to the cancellation of the part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment as the purport of appeal, the plaintiffs sought the same judgment as the entries in the purport of appeal, and the violation of the law by the defendant's original judgment shall be revoked, and the part against which the defendant's original judgment against the defendant'

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In the case of the claim for the registration of the ownership transfer and the preservation of the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiffs were 0, 106, 30, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 10,000, 10,000,000, 10,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

In addition, considering the overall purport of the parties' arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 1-9, Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2-8, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-4 and the testimony of the witness of the court below as well as the whole purport of the parties' arguments, although the facts were stated that the building of the main school as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the above statutory compromise are constructed only on the 7-dong surface of Busan Metropolitan City No. 11-1, 101 and 101-2 (this land is partitioned on Feb. 20, 1970, and 19-1, 69-1, 6-1, 7-1, 1, 31, 1, 31, 1, 1, 31, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, and 4, 7-1, m.

As the principal claim against the Defendants, the Plaintiff et al. first, confirmed this real estate as the Plaintiff’s possession by the above legal compromise protocol and the decision of correction of the above protocol. Since the above protocol of compromise has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, the Plaintiffs acquire ownership of this real estate without registration pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act, while the Defendant’s law dissolution has lost ownership without registration. Despite the fact that the above protocol of compromise was completed on March 23, 1970 after the above protocol of compromise was established, the above registration of Defendant lele title was completed as above. Thus, the above registration of Defendant lele title was defective in the cause as the acquisition by transfer from an unentitled person. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff et al., against the Defendant lele title, seeking the cancellation of the registration, and sought the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure for this real estate as the above legal compromise against the Plaintiffs

In light of the above, since the protocol of compromise is established with the same title as that of the final and conclusive judgment and the res judicata takes effect, the plaintiffs are sufficient to execute the protocol of compromise pursuant to the above protocol of compromise. The plaintiffs' claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant's legal representative cannot be viewed as an unlawful lawsuit without specific benefit or necessity of establishing the rights or the legal relations of the plaintiffs' claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant's legal representative, and the judgment under Article 187 of the Civil Code refers to the case where the formation effect of the right to real estate takes place by the judgment itself, and it does not include the judgment ordering the plaintiffs to implement the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of any legal act between the parties, so even if the protocol of compromise has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, it is not clear that the plaintiffs' claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant's legal representative, which is the first day of the execution of the above protocol of compromise with the above legal representative's legal representative, and it is not clear that the above plaintiffs' legal representative's legal representative ownership transfer registration of the above defendant's ownership transfer.

Next, I will examine the preliminary claim against the defendant's legal representative.

As seen above, Defendant 1 had an obligation to pay 100,000 won as stated in paragraph (4) of the same protocol to the remaining real estate excluding the part to be incorporated into the above road due to the urban planning among the above 5 and paragraph (6) of the above protocol of settlement. It is recognized that Defendant 2 had an obligation to receive 100,000 won as to the above real estate from Defendant 1 and to receive 100,000 won as to the above real estate at the time of 10,000 won as well as to receive 10,000 won as to the above real estate at the time of 10,000 won as to the above 40,000 won as 6,000 won as 10,000 won as 6,000 won as to the above 9,000 won as to the above real estate by 10,000 won as 6,000 won as to the above 6,01,000 won,000 won.

However, the obligation of the plaintiffs to transfer the ownership of the real estate in this case to the defendant legal representative is to be fulfilled at the same time with the completion of the plaintiffs' obligations by the above legal compromise protocol and the decision of correction. The plaintiffs, i.e., (1) 87 to 417 Masan-dong, Masan-dong, and the above ground buildings, were ordered from those who occupy the above ground buildings to receive the order from the plaintiffs and deliver them to the defendant legal representative by October 31, 1965 (2) the above settlement clause was not delivered within that time. (3) Even if the settlement clause of the above settlement clause 1,00,000 won was divided into three occasions, the plaintiffs did not comply with the above obligation of the plaintiff's claim for transfer registration as to the above real estate in this case, and thus, the plaintiffs' claim for transfer registration was rejected as a matter of course on the premise that the plaintiffs' claim for transfer registration was not made within 1,000,000 won.

As the primary primary claim, the plaintiffs' obligation to transfer the ownership of the above real estate arises at the same time with the removal of the principal school building constructed on this real estate under paragraphs (5) and (6) of the above legal reconciliation protocol, so the above principal school building should be compensated for 23,420,00 won, which is the amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the removal. However, as the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the above real estate by the law branch does not have a relationship with the removal of the principal school building constructed on the ground, the above obligation to transfer the ownership of the above real estate was not only the above obligation to the plaintiffs to purchase the above real estate from the defendant branch of law, but also the above obligation to purchase the above real estate from the defendant branch of law to the defendant branch of law to the extent that there is no special reason to believe that the above obligation to transfer the ownership of the above real estate was impossible. Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to transfer the ownership of the above real estate at the time of the execution of the obligation should not be known to the defendant branch of the law.

Then, the plaintiffs claim for the third preliminary claim, which is the third preliminary claim, for the payment of ordinary damages due to the impossibility of the performance of this case's real estate, and as seen above, the defendant law representative has the obligation to compensate the plaintiffs for damages at the time when the plaintiffs suffered losses due to the impossibility of performance due to the impossibility of performance. According to the testimony of the court below's witness Kim Jong-sung, it can be recognized that the average price of this real estate as of March 23, 1970 was 10,000 won, which is the time when the performance is impossible. The testimony of the trial witness for the trial is not believed, and the testimony of the trial witness for the trial witness for the contrary reasons is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof, so the defendant law representative has the obligation to pay the plaintiffs the above amount of 1,170,000 won at the market price of 1,170,000 won at the time of this case's real estate.

In addition, the plaintiff et al. asserts that the defendant legal representative violated the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate by making it impossible to perform the obligation to the above protocol of compromise, and that the defendant legal representative seek additional payment of 1,00,000 won according to the above protocol of compromise against the defendant legal representative, and that the plaintiff et al. of the above protocol of compromise should pay 1,00,000 won to the other party if the above obligation is not fulfilled first of each of the above provisions of compromise, it is clear by the statement of 1-1,00 won. However, since the plaintiff et al. failed to perform the above obligation to pay the amount under the above protocol of compromise as stated in paragraph (4) of the same article of compromise as to the defendant legal representative, the plaintiff et al.'s assertion that the plaintiff et al. paid the above obligation to pay damages to the defendant legal representative after the lapse of the above obligation to pay damages to the defendant legal representative, the plaintiff's assertion that the above obligation to pay damages to the above defendant's legal representative can not be justified.

However, as the plaintiffs' defense that the removal compensation is offset against the above main school building according to urban planning between the plaintiffs' receipt and the above main school building, the above main school building was removed and decided by the defendant's legal system pursuant to paragraph (5) of the above protocol of settlement, and as such, the defendant's legal system has the authority to receive compensation for the removal of the above main school building as the disposal authority, barring special circumstances, and the facts that the plaintiffs received 220,800 won from Msan City on August 12, 1970 and received 220,800 won from the above compensation for the removal of the above main school building are the same as already recognized. Thus, the above damage compensation claim against the defendant's legal system against the above main school building and the above compensation claim amount of the above building claim amount of 220,800 won as of August 12, 1970, the above offset against the defendant's legal system should be retroactively extinguished within the equal limit.

Thus, the defendant legal representative has a duty to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from May 11, 1974 to the full payment date, as well as from 11,710,000 won after deducting 220,80,000 won of the above building compensation from the above damages amount of 11,710,000 won, and as requested by the plaintiffs, as well as from 11,489,200 won after deducting the above damages amount of 220,80 won of the above building compensation amount, and as requested by the plaintiffs, the part of the above damages amounting to 11,489,200 won from the above damages amount to the above damages amount of 11,80,00 won shall be paid to the above damages amounting to 50% per annum of the Civil Code. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant legal representative shall be accepted within the above recognized scope of the above damages amount, and the part against the defendant legal representative's damages shall be modified.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)