beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for adding the following subparagraphs 2(a) at the end of the sixth 8th of the judgment of the first instance, and the end of the eighth 2th th th th th th th th 2 th th th th th th, as well as adding the following subparagraphs 2(b). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text
2. Additional parts
A. The 8th end of the judgment of the court of first instance (the defendant alleged to the effect that if the right to occupy and use unregistered real estate purchaser is recognized as above, the owner of the real estate would be subject to certain limitations on the ownership, and eventually, the right to use and benefit would eventually result in the waiver of the right to use and benefit. However, the recognition of the right to use and benefit as above is merely between the parties to a sales contract and between the persons in the same status as the plaintiff who newly acquired the ownership cannot be deemed to have the right to own and use
B. The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is not applicable to the case of a general double selling, but the defendant concluded an exchange contract with the seller, and accordingly performed the duty of exchange with the seller, while he did not register the ownership transfer of the real estate from the seller. However, the seller later transferred the real estate to the buyer, and the seller can assert the waiver of the right to use the real estate from the seller in bad faith to the Plaintiff, who is a specific successor in bad faith, is not subject to the general double selling doctrine. However, it is difficult to deem that C renounced renounced the right to use and benefit, as seen above, and even if the Plaintiff renounced his house and knew it, it is subject to the limitation on the right to use and benefit from the commercial building of this case.