Lawsuits on property devolvingd and succession to obligations under Article 74(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

It is reasonable to view that there is a succession to the obligation under Article 74(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in the event that the case of the appeal was brought to a court under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Gun, because the U.S. military administration recognizes the company Eul as the management company and the property for which the purpose is to be recognized as the management company of the company was to be the property belonging to the same company, and that the case of the appeal was brought to the court under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Gun Affairs, and that most of the shares of the company were to be owned by the Republic of Korea, and the management of the company was to be abolished under subparagraph 9 of the Government Administration Ordinance, and that there was a succession to the obligation under Article 74(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in the event that the actual rights and obligations

Article 74 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Representative of the Korean Automobile Industry Corporation, the knife Station

Agency of Home Affairs

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 53 civilian 113 delivered on June 30, 1954

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 is that, despite the fact-finding of a Japanese corporation, the plaintiff's title and the title transfer registration of the real estate for which the Japanese corporation had been a Japanese corporation shall continue to exist at the same time under the order of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and that the defendant's special lawsuit that the Japanese corporation had purchased the real estate for which the Japanese corporation had been a Japanese corporation as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, it is obvious by the judgment of the court of first instance that it would not be allowed to acquire the real estate for the first time through the first time and second instance, if it is clear that the former corporation was a Japanese corporation and its property devolving to the Japanese corporation, and it is hard for the court below to find that the former corporation's property will belong to the Japanese corporation's own interest in the first time and second time during the second time during the lawsuit, and it is hard for the court below to hold that the former corporation's property will belong to the Japanese corporation as an intervenor's own interest in the first time during the lawsuit and second time during the second instance court's judgment.

However, according to the reasoning of the court below's judgment that the plaintiff et al. sold the real estate owned by the plaintiff et al. to the same company by the suppressions and coercion of Japanese president of the Joseon Motor Industries Co., Ltd., which is the plaintiff et al. before August 9, 4278, the plaintiff et al. submitted a petition to the court below that the plaintiff et al. would have succeeded to the original purport of the court below's decision to the effect that the plaintiff et al. would not have succeeded to the original purport of the court below's ruling to the effect that the plaintiff et al. would have succeeded to the original purport of the court below's ruling to the effect that the plaintiff et al. would have succeeded to the original purport of the court below's ruling to the effect that the plaintiff et al. would have succeeded to the original purport of the court below's ruling to the effect that the plaintiff et al. could not have succeeded to the original purport of the court's ruling to the original purport of the court below's ruling to the effect that the plaintiff et al. will succeed to the original purport.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is that the ratification of this case's sales contract was recognized after the original judgment was 8.15, Japan, the representative of the hostile company, and the plaintiff et al. had been in violation of the laws and regulations which had been prohibited by the transfer of legal acts to Japan in the ASEAN. However, the ratification of this case's sales cannot be viewed as a conflict of No. 2 and No. 33 of this Act, and the existence of laws and regulations which prohibit it cannot be found.

For the above reasons, the appeal of this case is deemed to be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allotment of Kim Dong-dong