logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1970. 3. 31. 선고 69다2216 판결
[가옥명도][집18(1)민,291]
Main Issues

If there is an error that makes it impossible to recognize the identity of the actual building, the registration of preservation of the building shall be null and void, and in principle, registration of correction shall not be allowed.

Summary of Judgment

If there is an error that makes it impossible to recognize the identity of the actual building, the registration of preservation of the building shall be null and void, and in principle, registration of correction shall not be allowed.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Mabal management

Defendant-Appellee

Kim Tae-tae

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na93 delivered on November 20, 1969

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, although the building was located on the (detailed number omitted), the non-party 1, who is the owner of the original building, had the non-party 1 indicated the same 275 points in the indication column in registering the preservation of the building on April 3, 1956, and the non-party 2, who is the creditor of the above non-party, applied for compulsory auction after marking it to the same place in provisional seizure of the building on August 12, 1966, the defendant was the successful bidder, and the above non-party 1 had the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff before correcting the building indication as above (number omitted) and before correcting the above (number omitted). Thus, the first registration of the preservation of the building on June 14, 196, which is indicated as above 275, should be interpreted as invalid to the extent that the identity of the building can not be recognized, in principle, it cannot be accepted as valid at the time of the provisional seizure registration.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet

arrow
참조조문
본문참조조문
기타문서