Even if the registration of ownership transfer was not made by December 31, 1966 in accordance with Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Act concerning the real estate due to the donation at the time of the Gu Resident Law, the person who made the donation can file a claim for the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer for ten years from January 1, 1967, and the person who made the donation bears the obligation to implement the registration of ownership transfer, and therefore is in

Even if the registration of ownership transfer was not made by December 31, 1966 pursuant to Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Act with respect to the real estate due to the donation at the time of the former Civil Act, the person may file a claim for the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer for ten years from January 1, 1967, and the person who made the donation bears the obligation to implement the registration of ownership transfer, and therefore, he is in the position to

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 10 of the Civil Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 71No224 delivered on June 16, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even though the deceased non-indicted 1 donated the site of this case to the defendant at the time of the Gu Resident Act, his heir or non-indicted 2, 3 et al. acquired before the deceased's transfer from the deceased, did not follow the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the site of this case by December 31, 1966 pursuant to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, the deceased non-indicted 1's heir may claim against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of this site for 10 years from January 1, 1967, and on the other hand, the defendant bears the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer until the above date. Thus, the defendant is deemed to be a person in a position to handle another's business under the so-called criminal law, which is related to the deceased non-indicted 1's heir, and the assertion that there was a gross mistake in the original judgment does not constitute grounds under any subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Hong Nam-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)