The case holding that real estate can not be regarded as a social juristic act of the Do government because it was known that it was already sold in other ways.

If a creditor, who is aware of the fact that the site and building owned by the debtor had already been sold to another person, double acceptance of a loan claim for his/her obligation by the method of collecting it, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, it cannot be considered an anti-social

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2038 delivered on October 23, 1970, 75Da1783 delivered on April 27, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 9232 delivered on October 23, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 18±343 delivered on April 28, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 103Da343 delivered on April 28, 1972, Article 103(35)229 delivered on April 28, 1972

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Busan District Court (74Gahap272)

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1783 Decided April 27, 1976

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. As to the Plaintiff:

Defendant 2: 10 squarebebbes(A) parts of the ship (a) in succession to each of the items, including 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 1, from among the 18-year 18-long 18-long 18-long 1, mentmenbbella, Busan East-dong (number 2 omitted), Busan-dong (number 2 omitted), and 10-year 8.

Defendant 3, among the above buildings, 7, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7,

피고 2, 3은 위 건물중 같은 도면표시 ㅋ,ㅌ,ㅍ,ㅎ,ㅋ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내(다)부분 변소 4홉을,

피고 1은 같은곳 (지번 3 생략) 동 세멘브록크조 스레트즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 17평 8홉중 같은 도면표시 ㅌ＇,ㄱ＇,ㄴ＇,ㄷ＇,ㄹ＇,ㅁ＇,ㅂ＇,ㅋ＇,ㅌ′의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내(라)부분 9평 4홉을, 피고 차상내는 위 건물중 같은 도면표시 ㅋ＇,ㅂ＇,ㅅ＇,ㅊ＇,ㅋ＇의 각점을 순차 연결한 선내(마)부분 4평을, 피고 5는 위 건물중 같은 도면표시 ㅊ′,ㅅ′,ㅇ′,ㅈ′,ㅊ′의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내(바)부분 4평을,

피고 1, 4, 5는 위 건물중 같은 도면표시 ㅎ,ㅍ,ㅎ＇,ㅍ＇,ㅎ의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내(사)부분 변소 4홉을 각 명도하라.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 (written copy), non-party 1's written expert opinion of the court below without dispute in its establishment, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of on-site inspection by the court below, each of the buildings in the text form can be acknowledged as the facts that the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the plaintiff, and the facts that each of the above buildings occupies the same parts as the original text from among each of the above buildings, and

However, the defendant, etc. originally owned by the non-party 2 the above non-party's building site No. 69 square meters, 40 square meters, and each of the above above land's orders were owned by the non-party 2. The non-party 31 square meters, 5 square meters, and 2 of the above land's order No. 31 square meters, and the non-party 32 square meters, 5 square meters, and 1 of the above land's order No. 1 were sold to the defendant 2 and delivered the above building. Although the plaintiff knew of the above facts, the non-party 2 caused the above non-party's double purchase of the above land and building from the above non-party 2 and caused the non-party 2's double purchase of the above land and building to acquire the ownership transfer registration from the above non-party 40, and the plaintiff's above non-party 2 and the above non-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's testimony cannot be acknowledged as invalid.

Therefore, in this case where there is no assertion and proof as to the right to possess the above part of the defendants' above building, the defendants are obligated to order the plaintiff to express their respective parts of the building in the order. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is reasonable, and this conclusion is unfair. Since the original judgment is unfair in conclusion, it is revoked, and the defendants are ordered to express their opinions as to the above part of the building, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration as to the provisional execution declaration.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) and Lee Tae-tae Kim