(a) Scope of an appeal in cases where the part concerning a counterclaim was omitted in the column of the purport of appeal by the warden, but the purport that a whole objection is made by the judgment of the first instance is stated;

(b) Whether the principal registration based on the registration is identical with the mere request for ownership transfer registration;

A. According to the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiff, the part concerning the counterclaim is omitted in the purport of the appeal. However, in indicating the judgment of the first instance against which the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance, the name and number of the main lawsuit, the main lawsuit, and the main lawsuit, and the entire text of the counterclaim shall be stated. If the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the purport of the appeal that the original judgment is revoked in addition to the purport of the appeal, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff has lodged an appeal against the whole part against which the plaintiff has lost, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has appealed only to the main lawsuit

B. In a case where the principal registration is made on the basis of a provisional registration, the priority order of the principal registration is retroactive to the time of the provisional registration, and thus the interim disposition taken after the provisional registration becomes effective as subordinate to the principal registration, and thus, the principal registration based on the provisional registration and the mere claim for ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration shall be considered as different claims,

A. Article 227(b) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1881,1882 decided Apr. 14, 1981 (Gong1981, 13897) (Gong1388, 13897) b. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1637 decided Sep. 27, 1988 (Gong1988, 130)

[Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant] Plaintiff (Attorney Park Tae-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na18660 decided July 15, 1992 (Counterclaim) 18677

The judgment of the court below on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the plaintiff) the part concerning the counterclaim is omitted in the purport of the appeal. However, in indicating the judgment of the first instance, the case name and number concerning the main lawsuit, the main lawsuit, and the entire main lawsuit, and the order concerning the counterclaim are stated in the judgment of the first instance. In addition to the purport of the appeal, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff appealed the whole part of the judgment against the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff only appealed against the main lawsuit by omitting the parts concerning the counterclaim in the column of the purport of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da181,1882, Apr. 14, 1981; 87Meu2819, Apr. 25, 1988).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the counterclaim.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below revoked the judgment of the court of first instance on the plaintiff's failure suit and ordered the plaintiff to file an objection under paragraph (2) on the ground that the plaintiff's main claim of this case was to seek the implementation of each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the payment agreement on October 3, 1989 with respect to each of the real estate of this case.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's claim of this case was made on August 21, 1990 at the date of the seventh pleading of the court of first instance, and the application for change of purpose of claim and cause of claim were stated. "The provisional registration of this case was made on August 8, 198 with the Daejeon Registry No. 39280 of the receipt of Daejeon Registry on August 8, 198, and on October 23, 1989 on the basis of the provisional registration of preservation of the right to claim for ownership transfer transfer registration, it was not changed by a document or oral statement. However, since the plaintiff's claim of this case was made on May 18, 1992 on the date of the second pleading of the court of first instance, the court below's claim was not changed by a document or oral statement since it was changed that "the provisional registration of this case was made on the ground of the provisional registration of this case, which was made on October 23, 1989, which was added as one of the grounds for registration.

There is reason to discuss.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff 1 on August 8, 198 with respect to the above real estate owned by the defendant 100,000 won on the ground that the above real estate was disposed of on July 15, 198. On the other hand, with respect to shares in forest owned by the defendant 1 on August 1, 198, the provisional registration for the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff 1 was made on the ground of a pre-sale agreement on July 30, 198. The above provisional registration was to secure the above non-party 1's total amount of KRW 396,50,000 for checks against the plaintiff 1,00 won on the ground that the above real estate was disposed of under the above provisional registration 90,000 won on the ground that the above real estate was disposed of by the defendant 1,500,000 won on the ground that the above provisional registration was made on the above real estate 19.

However, there is no direct evidence to deem that the real estate in this case was provided as a security or provided as a substitute payment to the above non-party 1, and even if based on the facts established by the court below, the provisional registration in the name of the plaintiff on the real estate in this case is different from the provisional registration made as to the forest land in the judgment of the above non-party 1, so it can be concluded that the real estate in this case was provided as a security to the plaintiff or provided as a substitute payment with the forest land in this case as well as the forest land in this case in the judgment of the court below, solely on the ground that the defendant and the above non-party 1 are engaged in the same type of business between the defendant and the above non-party 1, as the registration date or the registration date are different from all the provisional registration made as to the forest land in this case in the judgment of the court below. In addition, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 23-2 and the official gazette bound by the records, the above land is obviously not located within the land transaction permission zone at the time of this case

Therefore, the court below should make a further examination of the facts and make a determination of the propriety of the claim in the provisional registration of the plaintiff's name as to the real estate of this case in the provisional registration of the plaintiff's name as to the forest land of this case and the provisional registration of the purchase and sale reservation or registration date of the plaintiff's name as to the above non-party 1, and the circumstances where the plaintiff withdrawn the application for the principal registration of this case and the defendant asserted that the obligation for provisional registration was repaid by the defendant, and the circumstances where the endorsement of the plaintiff's name was stated in the provisional registration of this case's statement, and then the court below should make a determination of the propriety of the claim. However, the court below concluded that the real estate of this case was offered to the above non-party 1's guarantee of the obligation to the plaintiff of this case and its payment in substitution. Under the premise that the measures that rejected the evidence corresponding to the defendant's counterclaims claim

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, all of the judgment below on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)