logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 8. 31. 선고 71다1285 판결
[가등기말소회복등][집19(2)민,271]
Main Issues

A person who has acquired rights on the register after the registration of the person entitled to make a registration was cancelled by an unlawful method shall have an obligation to approve the procedure for recovery registration.

Summary of Judgment

A person who has acquired rights on the register after the registration of the person entitled to make a registration was cancelled by illegal means shall have an obligation to approve the procedure for recovery registration of the person entitled to make

[Reference Provisions]

Article 50 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Sponsorus

Defendant-Appellant

Gambi, et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2852 delivered on May 12, 1971

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Reasons

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined as to the defendants' attorney;

According to the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court acknowledged the following facts by the evidence of the judgment. In other words, this real estate is originally owned by Co-Defendant 1 in the first instance court. On October 15, 1969, the plaintiff made a promise to sell and purchase this real estate and made a provisional registration based on such promise to sell and purchase this real estate. The co-defendant 1 in the first instance court delegated the plaintiff's seal and the certificate of seal imprint and cancellation registration to the judicial officer, by forging the power of representation, and thus, it is hard to find the above provisional registration under the above name of the plaintiff's title to be cancelled on December 1, 1969 (the above forgery was the first co-defendant 1 in the first instance court's request for the above provisional registration cancellation against the plaintiff Co-Defendant 1 in the first instance court's judgment, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provisional registration, but it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provisional registration from the first instance court's judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)

arrow