The case holding that it is possible to ratification the fact that there is an obligation to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer by approving the existence of the obligation and thereby giving up benefit due to expiration

The case holding that if Gap purchased the land from February 8, 197, and then divided the land and partly substituted due to the land readjustment project, Eul's death and the extinctive prescription of Gap's right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the above sales contract has expired on May 1989, after Eul's death, Eul's death, Eul shall be given to Cho Jong to pay and settle the liquidation money, so it shall be made possible to pay and settle the liquidation money, and if Eul's person possessed the liquidation money corresponding to the liquidation money notification due to the above land substitution confirmation, Eul can be confirmed by approving the existence of the obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration with respect to the land, and thereby waiver of profit due to the expiration of the above extinctive prescription period.

Articles 168 and 184 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2173 decided Feb. 7, 1967 (No. 15 ① civil89) decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong191, 218)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na4125 delivered on October 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The court below held on February 8, 197 that the deceased non-party 1 purchased No. 27 square meters from the defendant on the Gyeonggi-gun ( Address 1 omitted), that the land was divided into ( Address 1 omitted), 1 square meters, 21 square meters and 5 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), and that the ( Address 4 omitted) 21 square meters and 33.8 square meters due to a land readjustment project ( Address 5 omitted) and 5 square meters ( Address 4 omitted) were replaced by a land readjustment project, and that the defendant paid the above liquidation money to the non-party 2, who was a white part of the plaintiff's judgment on May 1989, the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the above sales contract, and that the court below's determination that the above non-party 1's punishment is right and wrong by giving the plaintiff the above-mentioned land no relation with the defendant's 21 square meters and 30 square meters, and that the defendant is not entitled to approve the above liquidation money due to 1 square meters.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)