Part of the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the pre-determined payment contract after the existing obligation has been extinguished.

Since the payment in kind is an essential contract to be established when other benefits are actually performed instead of the original obligation, in a case where other benefits are the ownership transfer of the immovables, the existing obligation is extinguished by the establishment of the payment in kind only after the completion of the registration thereof. Therefore, in a case where the existing obligation is extinguished by the performance according to the principal obligation prior to the occurrence of the payment in kind, the parties concerned may not file a request for the registration

Article 466 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant 1] and six others, Defendant 1, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the deceased non-party

Daejeon District Court Decision 85Na227 delivered on July 9, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Since the payment in kind is an essential contract established when other benefits are actually performed in lieu of the original obligation, if other benefits are the ownership transfer of the real estate, the existing obligation is extinguished by the completion of the registration of the payment in kind. Therefore, if the existing obligation is extinguished by the performance according to the principal obligation before the payment in kind takes effect, it is impossible to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with the parties to the payment in kind.

Even if the contents of the contract of the court below dated July 31, 1982 at the time of the original judgment are deemed to be an agreement of accord and satisfaction with the condition of suspension, as in the theory of lawsuit, the court below rejected the case where the registration of ownership transfer is sought under the agreement of the allegation, as stated in its reasoning, since the existing obligation had been extinguished, there is no violation of law that affected

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)