Transfer of ownership and delivery order after the order of delivery

Even if the ownership of real estate was executed after the transfer to a third party, the reason why the ownership was transferred to a third party is not void, unless the transfer of the ownership is changed differently by the name of another debt, etc., or the public authority is not determined so that it can be invalidated thereafter.

Article 647 of the Civil Procedure Act

On September 30, 1970, 70Ma539 decided Sep. 30, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 9124, Supreme Court Decision 18Third citizen 181 and Supreme Court Decision 647(8)1083 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Applicant

1 other than the Korea Assets Management Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 74Ka702 decided July 1, 201

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The original judgment shall be revoked. The original judgment shall be revoked. The possession of the respondent with respect to the real estate and movable property recorded in the attached list shall be ordered to be kept in custody by the applicant and entrusted by the applicant to the head of the office belonging to the Seoul Central Criminal and Criminal District Court, and the use of the above property may be allowed to the applicant on the condition that the present situation shall not be changed. The purport of the above order shall be publicly notified in an appropriate manner. All the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent.

On July 3, 1972, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, entered into a contract with the respondent to sell real estate and movable property (the foregoing movable property is a common property of the above movable property, which is attached to the above movable property pursuant to Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act; hereinafter the above real estate and movable property are combined with the above real property) in the purport of the application, received a successful bid from the Yeongdeungpo Branch Branch of Seoul and Criminal District Court, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership accordingly, and then received an order to deliver this real estate against the applicant on November 8 of the same year. The above Industrial Bank, on May 23, 1973, transferred this real estate to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on May 23, 1973 under the Act on Special Measures for Unpaid Loans by Financial Institutions, and the above Korea Asset Management Corporation entered into a contract with the respondent to sell it again, and the above Industrial Bank, on February 111, 1974, did not claim that the respondent did not jointly possess the dispute between the parties.

However, the applicant asserts the right to be preserved for the application of this case as follows. In other words, on Sep. 1, 1973, the applicant entered into a management contract with the respondent with respect to the real estate and possessed it lawfully upon the request of the Korea Assets Management Corporation on Sep. 1, 1973, and the Korea Assets Management Corporation sold it to 2 of the same respondent on Dec. 19, 1973. Accordingly, in collusion with the above Industrial Bank on Feb. 11, 1974, the notification of cancellation of the above management contract was illegally made to the applicant without any lawful right to cancel the above management contract. The above order of delivery was already transferred to the Korea Assets Management Corporation, and thus the above order of delivery was invalidated because the ownership of the real estate was already transferred to the above Korea Assets Management Corporation, and the applicant was unlawful, and the applicant had occupied the real estate lawfully (the notification of cancellation of the above management contract is null and void) by the execution of delivery, and the applicant was entitled to claim the return of the real estate pursuant to this case.

However, as alleged by the applicant, even if the ownership of the real estate was executed after the above transfer from the above Industrial Bank to the Korea Assets Management Corporation after the Respondent exceeded the above Respondent, the above transfer order does not become null and void merely on the ground that the ownership was transferred to a third party unless the above transfer of the ownership was made differently by other debt names, etc., so long as the above transfer of the ownership was not made to the third party. Thus, the above transfer execution cannot be deemed unlawful, and the above transfer execution cannot be deemed to be unlawful, and the above transfer of the Respondent Nos. 3 (Evidence No. 1, 4, and 2 without dispute over the establishment and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading by the witness other than the court below, the Respondent illegally occupied the above real estate without any title, and even if the Respondent did not have any objection to the above transfer contract, the Respondent did not have any legal title to the above transfer contract to the above Respondent and the above Respondent did not have any legal title to the above Respondent, even if the above Respondent had no objection to the above transfer contract to the above Respondent.

Therefore, the petitioner's claim of this case is no different from the petitioner's right to be preserved, so it is unnecessary to determine the necessity of the claim, and thus, it should be dismissed. Accordingly, the decision of the court below which forms the same conclusion is just and the petitioner's appeal is unfair, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing applicant and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) Promotion